This case involved the claims by G, C and their 2 children for damages for trespass, assault, unlawful imprisonment and breach of human rights against the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police. The claim was based on the obtaining and execution of a search warrant under the Firearms Act 1968. The Court drew no distinction between an implied power and a necessary power in order to ensure the safe and effective exercise of an express power. Murray v MOD 1988 followed. What was to be implied was a question of fact and degree. The police had a power to restrain and detain in such circumstances despite the absence of an express power in the 1968 Act, by virtue of s.3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and s.117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, those who might put lives in danger or otherwise themselves be put in danger. If there was any detention of the claimants it was necessary and proportionate in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law to secure the fulfillment of an important obligation namely compliance with a court order. In addition the Court of Appeal determined that the question of whether the detention was reasonable and therefore lawful was one of law and for the judge to determine rather than a jury.