UNLAWFUL DESTRUCTION OF PERSONAL

POSSESSIONS BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

It has come to attention that a number of public authorities, including Manchester City
Council, Nottingham City Council, West Yorkshire Police and the Metropolitan Police have
been seizing and destroying the possessions of homeless persons.
Such actions are incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on
Human Rights and, consequently, unlawful under Section 6(1), Human Rights Act 1998,
which states it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a
person's Convention right
This means that, unless a public authority has been ordered by a court of law to seize and
destroy a person's possessions, under an order made in accordance with the law, proof of
which shall lie on the public authority concerned, any seizure and destruction of a person's
possessions by a public authority shall, until the contrary is proven, be deemed arbitrary
and, consequently, incompatible with a person's Convention rights and unlawful.
Any public servant, including police officers, police community support officers and local
government officers, allowing, causing, encouraging, inciting others to do so, involved in or
permitting the unlawful seizure and destruction of persons' possessions shall be guilty of a
tort of Misfeasance in Public Office for which the public authority for which they act may
terminate their employment with immediate effect on the grounds of gross misconduct. A
public servant found guilty of unlawful seizure and destruction of a person's possession
may also, or alternatively, be guilty of an offence of Theft, contrary to Section 1, Theft Act
1968, and/or Criminal Damage, contrary to Section 1, Criminal Damage Act 1971 and be
liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Where a person whose possessions have been unlawfully seized and destroyed by a
public authority, the person shall be entitled to bring proceedings under Section 7, Human
Rights Act 1998 against the public authority and to seek an order for compensation and
costs and, if necessary, an order preventing any recurrence against the public authority.
This must be commenced within 12 months of the incident occurring. However,
proceedings may be brought under Section 7, Human Rights Act 1998 in order to prevent
a public authority doing something which is incompatible with a person's Convention
rights.
Nothing in the foregoing shall prevent any person so affected from bringing a claim against
a public authority for Wrongful Interference With Goods and/or Wrongful Conversion of
Goods, as the case may be, under Section 1, Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
Any of the actions against a person and/or their possessions, by a public authority,
described above may amount to a course of conduct amounting to harassment, under
Sections 1 and 2, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, if it happens on two or more
occasions. In such cases, the person so affected may, after serving appropriate notice on
the public authority, apply to the County Court, under Section 3, Protection from
Harassment Act 1997 for injunctive relief preventing the public authority, its employees,
servants and agents, continuing with or repeating the course of conduct. Such injunctions
carry criminal sanctions for breaching them, the maximum penalty being an unlimited fine,

or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or both.

A person may use as much force as is necessary in order to protect their possessions
and/or person, provided such force is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.
This factsheet shall be subject to change to accommodate any court rulings, new
legislation, etc..