Abraham v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MANTELL,LORD JUSTICE KAY |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWCA Civ J1208-11 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | CCRTI 00/0428/B1 |
[2000] EWCA Civ J1208-11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL
LONDON COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Simon Goldstein)
Lord Justice Mantell
Lord Justice Kay
CCRTI 00/0428/B1
MR. M. RYDER (instructed by Messrs Fisher Meredith, London, SW4) appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Claimant.
MR. G. POWELL (instructed by Messrs Bircham & Co., London, SW1) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant.
Sharon Abraham appeals against the order of His Honour Judge Goldstein striking out her claim for false imprisonment against the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police.
For present purposes I can assume the following facts. Miss Abraham is black. She has strong feelings about the way she believes black prisoners are treated by the police. On the morning of 13th January 1997 she was walking down Great Portland Street with her two year old son, intending to take the tube to Kilburn where she was to pick up another of her children. Her son was in a pushchair. Near to Top Shop she saw a black man being arrested by a number of police officers. She said to the man being arrested "I hope I see you alive again." One of the police officers, Police Sergeant Cook, asked "What did you say?" Miss Abraham replied "I hope I see him alive again" and continued on her way. The police sergeant caught up with her and took hold of her left wrist. He repeated "What did you say?" Miss Abraham said "You heard what I said. Can you let go of my hand please?" Miss Abraham then said "You're hurting my fucking wrist." The sergeant told her "You swear one more time and I'll arrest you.". Miss Abraham then said "my fucking wrist". The sergeant told her that he was arresting her for assault because she had sworn. With the help of others he then proceeded to put her into a police vehicle and her little boy would have been left behind but for the intervention of a bystander who insisted that he be taken also. Then she and her son were taken to Marylebone Police Station where she was detained until the early afternoon. In the meantime, just after noon, Miss Abraham's sister came to collect the little boy and Miss Abraham received the advice of a duty solicitor. On being told by the duty solicitor that any claim she might have would not be prejudiced by her accepting a formal caution, Miss Abraham did so at about 1.40 in the afternoon, whereupon she was permitted to leave. In the course of accepting the formal caution she admitted a version of facts as told by Police Sergeant Cook, which represented a gross exaggeration of the incident which had led to her arrest. On Police Sergeant Cook's account Miss Abraham had come out with a torrent of abuse, using every kind of swear word to describe him, until things got to such a pitch that the police sergeant considered that Miss Abraham's behaviour was likely to cause harassment and distress or, at the very least, alarm to members of the public. Her arrest had been in respect of disorderly conduct, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Throughout her time at the police station Miss Abraham was treated appropriately, and all the procedures leading up to and including the issuing of a formal caution were carried out in a perfectly proper manner.
It was contended before His Honour Judge Goldstein that the civil claim for damages was an abuse of process and ought, therefore, to be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) or, alternatively, that summary judgment should be entered in favour of the defendant under CPR 24.2. In each case the Commissioner relied upon the fact that Miss Abraham had admitted Police Sergeant Cook's version of events which would have justified the arrest. It was common ground that Miss Abraham would have had a sustainable claim if the truth was as set out above.
From Miss Abraham's point of view, there is no doubt that the acceptance of the formal caution and the making of the admission will, at the very least, damage her case on any hearing as to the merits. It might even prove fatal. However, the question is: should the fact that she made such an admission prevent her from presenting her claim? The learned county court judge considered that it should. It was his view that a formal caution was so closely analogous to a criminal conviction as to create a bar to any civil claim inconsistent with the record. He relied upon what is sometimes called the principle in Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529, but which is more conveniently set out by Lord Diplock in Saif Ali v Sidney Mitchel & Co [1988] AC 198, 222:s
"Under the English system of administration of justice, the appropriate method of correcting a wrong decision of a court of justice reached after a contested hearing is by appeal against the judgment to a superior court. This is not based solely on technical doctrines of res judicata but upon principles of public policy, which also discourage collateral attack on the correctness of a subsisting judgment of a court of trial upon a contested issue by retrial of the same issue, either directly or indirectly in a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction."
In this court his decision has been supported on that ground and also on the alternative basis that the admission was a representation of fact which the police have acted upon to their detriment.
It may help if I begin by discussing the origins, nature and consequences of a formal caution. For what follows I am indebted not only to counsel but also to His Honour Judge Richard May for his excellent article in [1997] Crim LR 491. The formal caution is not a creature of statute. In the case of adult offenders it seems to have evolved out of a longer standing practice in respect of juveniles. The first written reference which has been brought to our attention is Home Office Circular No.14 of 1985. That document refers to the practice of cautioning "in the case of juvenile offending". It states that cautioning "also represents a possible course of action in the case of adults". Attached to the Circular are some guidelines. As to the decision to caution, the guidelines provide that if
"prosecution is deemed not to be required in the public interest, it will often be appropriate to take no further action and this course should also be considered....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another (Liberty intervening)
...acts committed by his or her officers (as, for example, in O'Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex [1998] 1 WLR 374 and Abraham v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2001] 1 WLR 1257). 30 Legal remedies before the courts are not, however, the only mechanism for protecting citizens aga......