A NORTH-EAST police force last night won a national test case ruling when two top judges stripped a Middlesbrough man of a £1,500 compensation pay-out.

Cleveland's chief constable went to the Appeal Court after a judge ruled that Mark McGrogan had been unlawfully detained in a police cell for several hours in the wake of a domestic incident.

In January last year, Judge Bowers, sitting at Middlesbrough County Court, awarded Mr McGrogan £1,500 damages. He did so, "with great reluctance", after finding him an "unconvincing and unreliable" witness who had fully deserved to be arrested in the first place.

Yesterday, the police emerged victorious when Appeal Court judge Lord Justice Wall ruled Judge Bowers had "reached the wrong conclusion".

Stripping Mr McGrogan of his damages pay-out, the judge said the entire period for which he had been detained was "justified".

Lord Justice Wall began his ruling by saying that the case raised issues of "general importance" concerning police powers to detain prisoners who they fear may cause a breach of the peace.

The court heard how police were called to Eastbourne Road, Grove Hill, Middlesbrough, on April 4, 1998, in response to a complaint by a member of the public that a man matching Mr McGrogan's description had been seen attacking a woman and dragging her by the hair.

There was much dispute about exactly what happened, with Mr McGrogan denying that he had assaulted the woman, saying they had only been "scuffling". He insisted it was she who had assaulted him.

Mr McGrogan, of Eastbourne Road, was taken back to the station where police claimed he became extremely violent in a holding room and had to be restrained. He denied he had been violent at all.

Overturning the judge's finding that Mr McGrogan had been unlawfully detained for part of the time he was in police custody, Lord Justice Wall said Judge Bowers had "reached the wrong conclusion" on all the evidence before him.

Lord Justice Wall, sitting with Lord Justice Mantell, said nothing in his ruling should be taken as watering down the need to regularly review the cases of those held in detention and to bring them before magistrates "at the earliest opportunity".