Defamation case against the police

You may be eligible to sue the police for defamation if they fail to maintain impartiality and confidentiality, leading to public statements that wrongly imply your guilt. To find out more, read this case study.

When can you take legal action against the police for defamation

The case of Suresh v Commissioner of the police of the metropolis

Steps to take if you’ve been defamed by the police

When can you take legal action against the police for defamation

You might have grounds to pursue legal action against the police for defamation if they have breached their essential duties of maintaining impartiality and confidentiality. This situation typically arises when police officers, during their investigations, prematurely treat allegations against a person as conclusive truths, thereby violating their fundamental duty to remain unbiased and objective, commonly referred to as ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Such actions can significantly impact the reputation and rights of the accused.

Occasionally, police officers may make statements to the public that unintentionally or deliberately imply the guilt of the suspect in the ongoing investigation. These statements can take various forms, being either spoken or written. A common occurrence is when these remarks are communicated to the person or parties who initially filed the complaint against the suspect.

The issue escalates in severity if the police make these defamatory statements in a formal written format, such as a letter sent to the complainant. The danger lies in the possibility of this letter being further disseminated, especially if the complainant chooses to publish it online, which can lead to widespread and lasting damage to the suspect's reputation.

It is imperative for police officers to exercise restraint in their communications, keeping their personal opinions and preliminary assessments confidential, particularly when interacting with witnesses or complainants. Failure to adhere to these standards of confidentiality and objectivity throughout their investigation may open the door for a defamation claim. If the police fail in these duties, the accused individual may have a viable case for defamation, seeking redress for the harm caused by these unwarranted and potentially damaging assertions.

The case of Suresh v Commissioner of the Police of the metropolis

In this notable defamation case, Selvaratnam Suresh, Chairman of the Oriental Fine Arts Academy of London (OFAAL), successfully sued the police after being wrongfully implicated in fraudulent activities by a Metropolitan Police Detective Sergeant.

Represented by Yair Cohen of Cohen Davis, Mr. Suresh, a highly esteemed community worker and leader within the Tamil community in England and Europe, faced false allegations of fraud, including the unlawful alteration of official charity documents. These accusations were initially made to the police and later led to a defamation lawsuit against his accusers.

The turning point in Mr. Suresh's ordeal came when the Detective Sergeant investigating these claims sent an email to the accusers. In this email, the officer accused Mr. Suresh of abusing his position at OFAAL to commit financial fraud over several years and in multiple countries, harming both the charity and its beneficiaries.

Additionally, the email alleged fraudulent alterations to the OFAAL Constitution to perpetuate this financial fraud. This email was subsequently forwarded by the accusers to an expansive circle of individuals, including those in the fine arts community and other South Asian institutions in the UK and Europe, under the pretence of substantiating their false allegations.

The widespread distribution of this email inflicted severe damage on Mr. Suresh's reputation. Given the high authority and perceived credibility of the Detective Sergeant, recipients were likely to view these allegations as credible and supported by sufficient evidence. The Charity Commissioner conducted a special review, led by its Head of Operations, into both Mr. Suresh and OFAAL's conduct. This review, however, did not find any evidence supporting the allegations made in the officer's email.

Despite the Charity Commissioner’s invitation to the Detective Sergeant to present any evidence of financial fraud, none was forthcoming. Meanwhile, the accusers had already publicised the defamatory email to a wide audience, including Mr. Suresh’s immediate and professional communities, whose esteem and support were crucial for his role in OFAAL. This publication severely tarnished Mr. Suresh's reputation in his local and professional circles.

We emphasised the 'grapevine effect' in the lawsuit, highlighting how the defamatory email was likely further disseminated beyond its initial recipients. Ultimately, the Metropolitan Police settled the case, agreeing to pay undisclosed damages and Mr. Suresh's legal costs, along with issuing a formal apology.

Despite the settlement, the damage caused by the email had far-reaching effects. The initial belief in the allegations, fuelled by the authority of the Detective Sergeant, led many to question Mr. Suresh's integrity, causing distress to him and his family. This case underscores the significant impact of defamatory statements, especially when made by individuals in positions of authority, and the complex challenges involved in restoring tarnished reputations.

Steps to take if you’ve been defamed by the police

If you find yourself in the unfortunate situation of being defamed by the police, it's crucial to seek legal counsel promptly. Early legal intervention in cases of defamation is essential for several key reasons.

First and foremost, consulting a lawyer early can help mitigate the spread of the defamatory statements. In many instances, swift legal action can significantly reduce further publications of the defamatory content or even halt them altogether. This proactive approach is vital in controlling the narrative and limiting reputational damage.

Secondly, it's important to be aware of the time-sensitive nature of defamation cases. There is a statutory limitation period of 12 months for initiating legal action in defamation cases. This means you have one year from the date of the first publication of the defamatory material to file a lawsuit. Failing to act within this timeframe could result in losing the legal right to pursue your claim, regardless of its validity.

Thirdly, in certain defamation cases against the police, like the case of Suresh v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, you may qualify for a 'no win, no fee' agreement, known in the legal realm as a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). Under such an arrangement, you would only be responsible for paying your legal fees if you successfully win your defamation claim against the police. This can make pursuing a lawsuit more financially feasible, especially if you are concerned about upfront legal costs.

It's also worth noting that defamation cases, particularly those involving police authorities, can be complex and require specialised legal expertise. A lawyer experienced in handling defamation cases will be able to navigate the intricacies of the law, gather necessary evidence, and effectively represent your interests. They can also advise you on the potential outcomes of your case, including possible compensation or public apologies, and guide you through the legal process.

In summary, if you have been defamed by the police, acting quickly and seeking specialised legal advice is essential. Doing so not only helps in managing the immediate effects of defamation but also ensures that you are within your legal rights to seek justice and redress for the harm caused to your reputation.

Defamation Solicitors, Starting a defamation claim

Hits: 27