Acts Done in Execution of Office
| Author | JA Coutts |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300630 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
Judicial Committee
of
the
Privy Council
Acts Done in Execution of Office
Crooks v Ebanks [1999] 1 WLR 1287
Whether
an
act is done in the execution of the doer's office (or in the
execution of his duty) is a question which is of equal importance in
criminal
and
civil law alike. In the present case, the question arose in
the
course of a claim for damages made by a plaintiff
who
had
been injured
by the act, or the consequences of the act, of a police officer. The armed
police officer had witnessed arobbery and while chasing the robber he
tripped on some rubbish on the road
and
fell, with
the
result that the
revolver dropped
out
of his
hand
and
fell to the ground.
It
discharged
one bullet which hit an onlooker in
the
head, causing brain damage. She
sued
the
police officer
and
the Attorney General, alleging that
her
injury
was the result of
the
officer's negligence. The defence was
that
there was
no case to answer, for
the
local legislation requires that in any action
brought against a police officer in respect of
any
act done by him in
the
execution of his office, it had to be pleaded and
then
proved
that
his act
was done maliciously or without reasonable or probable cause. As
neither
had been pleaded, the action was dismissed in the High Court;
but
the Court of Appeal of Jamaica overturned that decision by a
majority, on
the
ground that the legislation could
not
apply to actions in
negligence. From
that
decision, appeal was taken to the Privy Council.
In Jamaica, s 33 of the Constabulary Force Act provides
that
in
any
action against
any
constable for
'any
act done by him in the execution of
his office', this action in tort requires it to be alleged that such act was
done either maliciously or
without
reasonable
or
probable cause.
The appeal to the Privy Council was argued
upon
the
question
whether
the
local statute could be applied to an action in negligence or
whether
the
action
had
to be founded
upon
a plea of,
and
proof of, a
direct act by the constable against another, which direct act was itself an
act done in the course of his office.
HELD,
DISMISSING
THE
APPEAL,
and
affirming the decision of
the
Court
of Appeal of Jamaica, the plaintiff was
not
required to allege that the act
of
the
police officer was malicious
or
done without reasonable or prob-
able excuse, as that requirement of the local legislation applies only to a
direct act,
and
not
to an indirect act which would found an action on the
case such as negligence.
COMMENTARY
The decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal, overruling that of
the
trial judge, was based on
the
distinction drawn' at common law
between trespass and case. That
meant
that there had to be a direct act
aimed at
the
other
person before
the
local Act could be
shown
to apply
to
the
situation. Running with the
gun
was no doubt in
the
execution of
579
To continue reading
Request your trial