This case has made my blood boil, it is one about how the British boys in blue broke into the wrong house causing damage. Then they refuse to pay for the damage that they caused.
I hold the view that if the police break and enter a building then if they either make a mistake or find no sign of criminal activity then they should have to make good any damage which they do. I think that if they force an entry acting in good faith then while it should protect them from criminal law it should not protect them from civil law.
I would like to point out that a typical person drives a car in a manner where they are trying to avoid damaging the property of others (by avoiding crashing the car). Even if you drive in good faith if you crash your car and damage the property of others then you are still required to pay to make good the damage. That is why we have third party liability insurance for our cars.
So if the car driver who attempts to avoid a crash is liable for each crash then surely a person who made a choice to undertake an action which caused damage to the goods/property/person of another should be also liable.
I would like to know why the policeman choose to break down the door. While a sledge hammer can open a door it does make a lot of noise which can alert a nasty occupant in a building, while a lock smith might take a little longer (and cause less damage) it is close to silent. So why then did the police not choose to get a locksmith to open the front door (Zero damage) ?
If any of my readers have an update on this case or opinion then please send me a comment
Filed under: police |