Abbassy v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WOOLF,LORD JUSTICE MUSTILL,LORD JUSTICE PURCHAS |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 1989 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1989] EWCA Civ J0728-13 |
| Docket Number | 89/0818 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 28 July 1989 |
and
and
[1989] EWCA Civ J0728-13
lord Justice Purchas
Lord Justice Mustill
and
Lord Justice Woolf
89/0818
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
LEONARD J.
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. P. THOMPSON (instructed by the Solicitor to the Metropolitan Police) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants).
MR. BURRETT and MISS C. WILLIAMS (instructed by Messrs Colin Bishop & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs).
The appeal and cross appeal in this case raise three issues.
-
(a) The extent of the obligation on a police constable to inform a person whom he is arresting of the reason for that arrest.
-
(b) What guidance a judge who is trying an action involving a claim for damages, is entitled to give to a jury in the course of his summing-up as to the amount of damages it is appropriate to award.
-
(c) Whether the jury's answers to two questions were inconsistent.
The issues arise out of an incident which took place on an afternoon as long ago as 1st July 1983. On that day Taleb Abbassy, the first plaintiff, and Mrs. Abbassy, the second plaintiff, were in a Mercedes motorcar driving towards Holland Park. Mr. Abbassy was observed by a number of police officers, including the second, third, fourth and fifth defendants, who were in a police vehicle, driving in an inconsiderate manner. The police vehicle followed the Mercedes to the car park of Holland Park where a discussion took place between Mr. Abbassy and W.P.C. Walter, the second defendant. According to W.P.C. Walter's account of that conversation, Mr. Abbassy was arrogant and rude. He was asked at least four times about the ownership of the vehicle which he was driving but he gave no helpful information although on the last occasion, immediately before he was arrested, he had been told by the officer that if he did not satisfy her with regard to the ownership of the vehicle she would arrest him. On arrest he was told by W.P.C. Walter that he was "being arrested for unlawful possession". Mrs. Abbassy was upset by what occurred and she intervened throwing her arm round Mr. Abbassy's neck and saying that the police were not going to take him. After, according to the police, attempts had been made to persuade Mrs. Abbassy to desist, the second defendant, W.P.C. Richardson, arrested Mrs. Abbassy for wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of her duty. The officer who was said to be acting in the execution of her duty was W.P.C. Walter who had Mr. Abbassy in her custody. Both Mr. and Mrs. Abbassy were taken to the police station and they were in custody from approximately 5.35 p.m. until 7.45 p.m.
Although W.P.C. Walter did not expand on the explanation she gave to Mr. Abbassy for arresting him, in fact the reason for the arrest was because she suspected that he had stolen or received or unlawfully taken and driven away the Mercedes motor car without the permission of its owner. However, as a result of subsequent enquiries, the police accept that in fact Mr. Abbassy committed none of these offences and that he had the authority of the owner to drive the vehicle.
As a result of the incident Mr. Abbassy was charged with an offence of wilfully obstructing W.P.C. Richardson in the execution of her duty, and Mrs. Abbassy was charged with four offences:
-
1. Wilfully obstructing W.P.C. Walter in the execution of her duty;
-
2. Assaulting P.C. Mardon thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm;
-
3. Assaulting W.P.C. Richardson in the execution of her duty; and
-
4. Without lawful excuse damaging property belonging to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police, that property being part of the uniform of W.P.C. Richardson.
The charge against Mr. Abbassy was eventually withdrawn but the second, third and fourth charges against Mrs. Abbassy were committed for trial at the Knightsbridge Crown Court.
At the first trial the jury were unable to agree upon a verdict, but upon the re-trial Mrs. Abbassy was acquitted in relation to all three offences.
After Mrs. Abbassy's acquittal, an action was brought against the present defendants. In the proceedings it is alleged that Mr. Abbassy was assaulted; one assault being a slap on the face by W.P.C. Walter and another by the fourth defendant, P.C. Mardon. It is also alleged that both Mr. and Mrs. Abbassy were unlawfully arrested and imprisoned, that Mrs. Abbassy had her hands handcuffed behind her back and that she was violently held, pushed, punched, slapped, kicked and dragged into the police vehicle which took her to the police station. Finally, it is alleged that the defendants are guilty of malicious prosecution.
The trial of these allegations took place over nine working days before Leonard J. and a jury.
After the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants had been given Leonard J. was invited to rule whether or not a sufficient explanation for Mr. Abbassy's arrest had been given to him by W.P.C. Walter. On this issue he decided as a matter of law on the defendant's account of what had occurred, that the explanation was insufficient and accordingly the arrest of the first plaintiff was unlawful. This meant that at the time of Mrs. Abbassy's intervention W.P.C. Walter was not acting in the execution of her duty, so that the consequence of Leonard J.'s ruling with regard to the arrest of Mr. Abbassy is that Mrs. Abbassy's arrest was also unlawful.
Leonard J. in giving a short judgment explaining his ruling said:
"…The arresting officer should have said more to indicate that she suspected the person being arrested of an offence which was an arrestable offence. It would have been sufficient, in my judgment, if she had said: 'I am arresting you for theft'. It would have been sufficient if she had said: 'I am arresting you for receiving stolen property'; there was no need to use the word 'handling', in fact it would probably have confused an Iranian suspect. [Mr. Abbassy is Iranian.] It would have been sufficient if she had said 'I am arresting you for taking this vehicle without authority'.…It is not possible to extract from those words information, available to Mr. Abbassy at the time of his arrest, indicating why he was being arrested.
Essentially this is a technical matter. I make no apology for that. The law is technical on this particular subject. It seems to me that the arrest must have been an unlawful one".
Having made this ruling Leonard J. then summed up to the jury and left to the jury three questions which had been agreed between counsel. One of those questions related to the alleged assault by W.P.C. Walter and in relation to that assault the jury by a majority came to the conclusion that W.P.C. Walter had assaulted Mr. Abbassy and in due course awarded him £750 damages. Another question related to the other alleged assault and the jury unanimously came to the conclusion that there had been no assault.
The third question was intended to resolve the issue as to whether or not the plaintiffs succeeded on the issue of malicious prosecution. The question was in the following terms:
"Has Mary Abbassy proved that W.P.C. Sharon Richardson, W.P.C. Beverley Walter, P.C. Richard Mardon and P.C. Charles Griggs, or any of them deliberately and knowingly wrote a false account in their notebooks of the events that took place in Holland Park on the afternoon of the 1st July 1983?"
To that question the jury answered "No", and in accordance with the course proposed by counsel the judge found in favour of the defendants on the allegation of malicious prosecution.
In his summing-up on the question of damages for the wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, Leonard J. carefully explained the issues to the jury, including explaining to the jury what are aggravated damages and the fact that in this case they were entitled to award aggravated damages. However, he gave the jury no guidance as to what sort of figure would be appropriate apart from indicating to the jury that the damages they should award "whether as compensation or as aggravated damages must be full and adequate recognition of the loss and injury suffered by the plaintiff you are considering" but not "more than is really appropriate". The judge also told the jury that the damages "should be fair and not extravagant". The amount of damages awarded to Mr. Abbassy was £5,000 and to Mrs. Abbassy £10,000.
The defendants duly appealed against the ruling of Leonard J. as to the lawfulness of the arrest and the quantum of damages and Mrs. Abbassy cross-appealed in relation to the decision on malicious prosecution.
In this judgment I will deal first with the two issues which arise on the appeal and then with the issue which arises on the cross-appeal.
The first issue—The adequacy of the reason given for arrest
In dealing with this issue Miss Williams, on behalf of Mr. Abbassy, and Mr. Burrett, on behalf of Mrs. Abbassy, in their helpful arguments accepted that Leonard J. was required to make his ruling on a view of the evidence which was most favourable to the defendants. Normally a question as to whether or not a proper explanation of the reason for the arrest has been given by the arresting officer to the person who is being arrested is a question of fact for the jury and not a matter of law for the judge. However, if on the defendants' own evidence the explanation which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Keong Mei Cheng Audrey; Polis Di Raja Malaysia
- Taylor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
-
Raed Salah Mahajna v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...information available to the arresting officer. For this proposition he relied on Abbassy v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1990] 1 WLR 385 at p.392. Abbassy in turn had referred to Wheatley v Lodge [1971] 1 WLR 29 where an arrest was found to have been lawful because the officer......
-
Alistair Stewart Harper v DPP
...of being over the prescribed limit”. 33He also referred in this context to the case of Abbassey v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1990] RTR 164; see the judgments of Woolf LJ (as he then was) at page 170 and Purchas LJ at page 176. Woolf LJ made the point that it was not necessary for the......