Police officer wins £120,000 payout after being attacked by violent criminal

A former policeman who was injured tackling an armed man has won a £210,000 damages claim against his bosses.

Mark Card, 49, took Police Scotland chief constable Jo Farrell to the All Scotland Personal Injury Court in Edinburgh over what happened to him in Inverness in May 2019.

The court heard that Mr Card and his colleagues were called to a house in the Highland city where a man armed with a four-inch long serrated knife was present.

The male, identified as C, had earlier been detained by fellow officers following a disturbance. These officers noticed that the man was carrying a blade. However, the male ran from the police officers before they could apply handcuffs or remove his knife.

The officers then radioed Police Scotland’s control room in Dundee and notified them of the situation. However, officers there incorrectly logged that C was in handcuffs at the moment he fled.

The court heard that as a consequence of this information, a more senior officer decided not to deploy armed officers. They also failed to log details of C’s criminal record and pending criminal cases; officers, including Mr Card, then did not receive a “stay safe” message.

Mr Card and his colleagues then entered the property where C was present, unaware that the tactical situation was different from the one presented to them by colleagues in Dundee.

The court heard that the officer then entered and noticed C sitting on the bed with his back to him and an unidentified object in his hands.

Mr Card shouted “show hands” but C got up, threw the “object” which he had been holding towards the pursuer, and “launched himself” at the police officer – C then landed on him and repeatedly punched him to the head and body in “a ferocious attack”.

Lawyers for Mr Card told Sheriff Iain Nicol, the personal injury sheriff, that the officers in Dundee acted negligently in failing to properly record information about the situation. They also argued that the Dundee control room acted negligently in failing to deploy armed response officers.

Lawyers for Police Scotland argued that Mr Card also failed to properly observe established procedures and his training and experience in dealing with the situation.

They argued that the pursuer should have taken a more cautious approach in dealing with C, and his actions contributed to his being assaulted.

In a written judgment published on Wednesday, Sheriff Nicol wrote of how lawyers in the case had agreed that Mr Card should receive £350,000 if the Police were held to be totally at fault.

But Sheriff Nicol concluded that Mr Card was 40% responsible for what happened with C and that the payment he should receive from Police Scotland should be reduced by that amount.

He added: “The simple facts of this case are that the pursuer knew the relevant safety principles which applied to the situation which he was confronted with.

“In fulfilment of the duty to take care for his own safety, it was incumbent on the pursuer to act in accordance with his training and communicate with control to advise that he and his colleagues were outside the house and effectively containing it and refrain from entering until further instructions were received.

“Whilst the defender, in my opinion, must be seen to be more blameworthy than the pursuer, in this case, the pursuer’s culpability is significant. This is not a case of carelessness or momentary inadvertence.”

The judgment does not reveal the nature of Mr Card’s injuries. He left the force before the case was brought to court.

The judgment outlined how police in Dundee updated a log which describes C as being a “violent, escaper,” who “conceals, ailments, suicidal and drugs”.

The log was further updated, stating that C “has ten pending cases, 61 previous convictions, most pending for drug offences, and one from 2018 for assault and possession of an offensive weapon — namely a knife and hammer”.

The court heard that the information should have been relayed to the Initial Tactical Firearms Commander to inform the risk assessment.

However, due to failures in communication and record-keeping, that information wasn’t acted upon, which the court found contributed to the negligent decision not to deploy armed officers.

The court found that Police Scotland staff failed to act appropriately and contributed to a situation where Mr Card ended up being injured.

But Sheriff Nicol concluded that he also contributed to the situation.

Sheriff Nicol wrote: “The pursuer had an aim and that was to ‘remove C from society so he would no longer pose a threat.’

“However, he went about it by ignoring well-established practice and procedure.

“I stop short of holding that he was guilty of the most wanton disregard for his own safety, but if he had simply stopped and thought about his training and drawn on his vast experience, he would have known he should be communicating with control and remaining outside the property.

“In my opinion, a just and equitable deduction for contributory negligence is 40%.

“I shall pronounce an interlocutor granting decree against the defender for payment to the pursuer in the sum of £210,000.”