Aaran Charlton Coghlan v Chief Constable of Manchester Greater Police

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMrs Justice Yip
Judgment Date12 July 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] EWHC 1784 (QB)
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Docket NumberCase No: D90MA146/D90MA175
Date12 July 2018

[2018] EWHC 1784 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY

(sitting at Liverpool District Registry)

Liverpool Civil Justice Centre

35 Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX

Before:

Mrs Justice Yip DBE

Case No: D90MA146/D90MA175

In the matter of D90MA146

Between:
Aaran Charlton Coghlan
Claimant
and
(1) Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
(2) Director General of the National Crime Agency
(3) Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service
Defendants

In the matter of D90MA175

Between:
Aaran Charlton Coghlan
Claimant
and
(2) Chief Constable of Manchester Greater Police
(2) Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service
Defendants

Mr Nick Stanage (instructed through The Bar public access scheme) for Mr Coghlan

Fiona Barton QC (instructed by Legal Services, Greater Manchester Police) for the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Jeremy Johnson QC (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for the Director General of the National Crime Agency

Jonathan Kinnear QC & Rupert Jones (instructed by The Government Legal Department) for the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service

Mr Stanage (instructed through The Bar public access scheme) for Mr Coghlan

Fiona Barton QC (instructed by Legal Services, Greater Manchester Police) for the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Jonathan Kinnear QC & Rupert Jones (instructed by The Government Legal Department) for the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Prosecution Service

Hearing dates: 23 & 24 May 2018

Judgment Approved

Mrs Justice Yip
1

This judgment deals with applications made in two sets of proceedings brought by Mr Coghlan against the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

2

The first case (D90MA146) relates to Mr Coghlan's prosecution for conspiracy to supply class A drugs (cocaine) between 1 June 2009 and 14 April 2010, referred to as “Operation Confection”. Mr Coghlan was arrested on 11 September 2010. The criminal proceedings came to an end on 8 June 2011, when the prosecution offered no evidence. A claim form was issued on 8 June 2017 against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police; the Director General of the National Crime Agency and the Director of Public Prosecutions, claiming damages for false imprisonment; malicious prosecution and misfeasance in a public office. The Particulars of Claim were served on 5 October 2017. I shall refer to this as “the Operation Confection claim”.

3

The second case (D90MA175) relates to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm arising out of events on 18 August 2008. Mr Coghlan was charged with that offence on 22 October 2008. That prosecution came to an end when the Crown offered no evidence on public interest grounds on 15 July 2011. The claim form was issued on 14 July 2017 against the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Particulars of Claim were served on 13 November 2017. I shall refer to this as “the ABH claim”.

4

In February 2018, each defendant made applications in each case for the summary disposal of the claims, by way of striking out pursuant to CPR 3.4 and/or summary judgment under CPR 24.2. In March 2018, those applications were listed for hearing on 23 and 24 May 2018.

5

On 11 May 2018, Mr Coghlan made an application for an order that “the Court appoints Special Counsel” and that “the Defendants' applications be adjourned generally pending the completion of the review of disclosure by Special Counsel”.

6

I heard all the applications together, on the basis that if I concluded that it was appropriate for Special Counsel to be appointed and to be involved in a review of disclosure prior to determination of the defendants' applications, I would then adjourn those applications before ruling on them.

7

Mr Coghlan was represented at the hearing by Mr Stanage of Counsel, who was instructed on a direct access basis. I recognise that he did his best to assist the court while vigorously pursuing his client's position. This was not an easy task. He had been instructed at short notice and came to the case afresh. He also had to deal with several interventions from Mr Coghlan with additional instructions being given during the hearing. I allowed a significant amount of time for Mr Stanage and Mr Coghlan to confer. Some would say I was too indulgent. Certainly, I believe that the claimant was given every opportunity to “put his case in order”. I am grateful to Leading Counsel who appeared for the defendants for their well-focused submissions and pragmatism in dealing with the hearing so that it could still be concluded within the time estimate.

8

I also record that some concerns were raised by the claimant about delays in papers reaching me before the hearing. As I indicated to the parties, there was no difficulty at all with the papers in the end. I had been able to pre-read sufficiently and was afforded ample time to read everything during adjournments.

9

The claimant's position was not entirely clear until the afternoon of the second day of the hearing when a number of further documents were produced. Through Mr Stanage, he conceded that the Operation Confection claim could not proceed on the basis of the case currently pleaded in the Particulars of Claim. That concession was not made in relation to the ABH claim. The claimant maintained his request for the defendants' applications to be adjourned. The basis on which the court was invited to adjourn was reduced to writing in an email timed at 14.22. This included seeking orders for the following:

(i) Permission to substitute “The National Crime Agency” for “The Director General of the National Crime Agency” as second defendant in the Operation Confection claim.

(ii) Permission to amend the Particulars of Claim in the Operation Confection claim. (Another email timed at 14.06 provided an outline of the proposed amendment, although no draft Amended Particulars of Claim have been produced.)

(iii) A declaration that both claims are proceedings in which a closed material application may be made to the court, pursuant to section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. Alternatively, a declaration that “the non-statutory closed material procedure be ordered by the Court's own motion.”

10

Mr Coghlan's position had therefore shifted. He had not made a formal application to amend his Particulars of Claim or to substitute the second defendant in the Operation Confection claim. The defendants allowed Mr Stanage to make the applications that he did and opposed them on their merits rather than taking procedural points. However, they fairly pointed to the very late stage at which the claimant was seeking permission to amend his claim. That approach was sensible since it allowed all matters to be aired and for me to look at the wider picture, including whether there was any realistic prospect that adjourning the defendants' applications would allow for any deficiencies in the claims to be cured.

11

At the end of the hearing, Mr Coghlan sought to address me directly. I did not consider that appropriate given that he was represented by Counsel and that I was not hearing evidence. Mr Coghlan reacted with what he describes as an outburst. This was short-lived, and I recognised that he was upset at the time. Immediately after the hearing, Mr Stanage asked to see me to apologise on Mr Coghlan's behalf. I indicated via my clerk that there was no need, the apology was accepted, I understood emotions can run high and it would have no bearing on the outcome. Having said and meant that, I mention it only because Mr Coghlan has since written to me via my clerk providing an explanation and further submissions as to the defendants' conduct. Having ensured that the defendants have had sight of his letter dated 18 June 2018, I have taken what Mr Coghlan says into consideration.

12

The merits of the claimant's application for an adjournment cannot be divorced from the merits of the defendants' applications. By hearing submissions on all the applications before ruling on any of them, I have been able to weigh everything in the balance. When considering the defendants' applications, I have had in mind at all stages that the claimant seeks an adjournment and an opportunity to strengthen the pleaded case.

The factual background

13

There is a significant history to these matters, which Mr Coghlan was keen I should recognise. He provided me with lengthy statements and a total of three bundles of exhibits, all of which I have considered.

14

Mr Coghlan maintains that the prosecutions giving rise to these claims are “intrinsically linked” to previous unsuccessful prosecutions. His case is that the defendants in the claims before me are determined to see him convicted of a serious offence “at all costs”. He has been charged with murder on three occasions. He was tried for the July 1994 murder of a man named Chris Little and acquitted by the jury. He was subsequently charged with the kidnapping and murder of David Barnshaw in September 1999. The indictment in that case was stayed by Penry-Davey J on 16 June 2003. I have read the ruling in full. It is extremely troubling. The judge concluded that important material had been deliberately withheld from the defence and from prosecuting counsel and the court.

15

On 9 February 2010, Stephen Akinyemi died at Mr Coghlan's home. Mr Coghlan was found with serious knife wounds; Mr Akinyemi had been shot. On 13 February 2010, Mr Coghlan was charged with murder. He maintained that Mr Akinyemi had brought the weapons to the scene and had died as Mr Coghlan sought to defend himself from a violent attack. On 29 July 2010, at Liverpool Crown Court, the Crown offered no evidence and a not guilty verdict was entered. Mr Coghlan brought a claim in similar terms to the ones I am concerned with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT