Lord justice Rix judgment was that apart from theabove mentioned facts of the incident had been mentioned in appellants claim.He went over the evidence before the county court judge. Furthermore, PC Adamscornering Mr.
Walker was unlawful and accepted that appellant is entitled fordamages to the brief and “technical” imprisonment, before his unlawful andviolent behavior before his arrest.It wasaccepted by the defense that this behavior of Mr. Walker resulted in thedetention, appellant argues that on the factors his initial detention beforethe arrest was unlawful and made him use considerable force to get him out ofthe situation prior to the arrest. Furthermore,Lord Justice saw that initial detention at the doorway wasn’t to arrest him butto inquire about the scene at the relevant time. Court accepted that theappellant’s imprisonment as a technical detention even though it lasted forsome time. The lastissue, was the purported arrest for “public order” a valid arrest within the section28(3) of PACE? LJ Rix identified that PC Adams had it in mind but could not finishwhat he was going to say and also judge identified that Mr.
Walker was givenenough reasons for his arrest prior to the actual arrest being performed. Onconclusion Lord Justice Rix stated that he would have awarded 1400 for assaultif proven and also 2000 for the imprisonment of 7 hours which followed. Due tothe fact that appellant couldn’t prove his claim he was only awarded with 5 forthe damages. Lord Justice Tomlinson agreed and added few points to thejudgement, that Mr. Walkers conduct attracts no sympathy but that is of courseoften the way when a fundamental principle is at stake. The previous judge’sdecision of 5 being an appropriate figure was considered generous to theappellant by him.Furthermore,LJ Tomlinson stated that The Court would order that appellant should recover25% of his costs of appeal.Lord Justice Rimer Agreed with both judgements