Humphries v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset: solicitor succeeds in striking out evidence collusion claim

The High Court has struck out claims brought by a litigant in person against a solicitor she instructed in relation to a criminal investigation, finding allegations that he colluded with police to tamper with returned evidence had no realistic prospect of success.

In Humphries v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary & Anor [2026] EWHC 1928 (KB), Master Stevens granted summary judgement and struck out the claim brought by Bethany Humphries against Neil Brooker, a solicitor at Reed Solicitors LLP who had represented her during a 2024 police investigation into alleged stalking. The claim against the Chief Constable, the first defendant, was addressed separately and was not struck out in its entirety.

Humphries had been arrested in July 2024 on suspicion of stalking involving fear of violence, with Brooker instructed shortly afterwards. The investigation concluded with no further action in January 2025, at which point the police arranged to return documents, a mobile phone and a laptop seized during the investigation. Humphries, who had separately been made subject to a Stalking Protection Order with a return hearing listed for November 2026, maintained that the seized material was essential to clearing her name and that any break in its chain of custody would leave her unable to do so.

A dispute arose over the manner of the property's return. Humphries had paid £360 for an appointment to review the items in her solicitor's presence, but the police ultimately delivered the property to Reeds' offices while both she and Brooker were absent, having indicated they did not consider it appropriate for her to be present given her ongoing complaint against the force. Humphries subsequently accused Brooker of colluding with officers to break the chain of custody and of facilitating a cover-up, though she later collected only her phone and laptop, declining to take the documents.

The judgement noted that the case had become considerably complicated by the volume of material Humphries had filed, including an 837-page witness statement and a hearing bundle exceeding 5,200 pages, despite a court direction limiting her case summary to 2,000 words.

Master Stevens found the claim for return of withheld evidence hopeless on the documentary record, since Brooker had repeatedly confirmed the property remained available for collection unchanged from how police had delivered it. On the chain of custody allegation, the judgement observed that the items Humphries was most concerned about, memory sticks, a SIM card and photographs, had never featured on the police's own property receipt, meaning their absence could not be attributed to Brooker regardless of when or how the return took place.

The collusion allegation was found to lack any pleaded primary facts capable of supporting an inference of dishonesty, applying the test set out in JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman. The judgement was critical of inferences Humphries had drawn from matters such as a solicitor's use of a male pronoun in referring to a female officer, describing the reasoning as speculative and unsafe. While acknowledging her evident distress and the pressure of her upcoming hearing, Master Stevens noted she had legal training and ought to have paused before making serious professional misconduct allegations within minutes of learning the property had been returned.

Costs were awarded to Brooker on the standard basis, with indemnity costs refused in light of his own failure to engage fully in pre-action correspondence.