ABSTRACT
Infringement of liberty has long been regarded as a delict which requires to be compensated, but public officers may in some circumstances be protected against liability where freedom has been ‘lawfully abridged’ in conformity with the rules of criminal procedure. However, the boundaries of this form of privilege have not always been delineated with clarity. This article will argue that they remain unclear following the Outer House decision in Whitehouse v Gormley. In particular it questions the basis for requiring the pursuer to prove malice where a claim is made against police officers for unlawful detention or arrest.
€
Elspeth Reid, Liability for Wrongful Deprivation of Liberty: Malice and Police Privilege, Edinburgh Law Review, May 2020, volume 24, no 2, pp 175-201.
First posted 2020-05-13 07:12:10
Leave a Reply