Alford v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 2009 |
| Date | 24 February 2009 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal, B3/2008/1753 & B3/2008/1753(A)
Sir Anthony May P, Richards and Rimer LJJ
S Cragg (instructed by Messrs Russell Jones & Walker) for A; R Perks (instructed by Messrs Weightmans LLP) for the Chief Constable
Whether the Chief Constable was liable for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution for an offence of causing death by dangerous driving because an expert report which had not been unduly critical of the driving and the report had been withheld from the arresting and charging officers
In December 2004 a Lincolnshire officer, A, was the driver of a police car involved in a police pursuit which ended when the pursued vehicle crashed, killing a passenger in the vehicle. An investigation was carried out by the Cambridgeshire Police under the management of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. On 2 March 2005, Cambridgeshire police received an expert report that was critical of A in several respects and concluded that the pursuit should have been discontinued as it was too dangerous. Lincolnshire police also commissioned an expert report ("the Parker report"), which was received on 10 March and was much less critical of A: it was sent to Cambridgeshire Police, but put on one side and did not come to the attention of the officer in overall charge of the investigation.
On 16 March 2005, A was arrested; he made no comment in interview and was released after 6½ hours. On 16 May 2005, a CPS lawyer advised in writing that A should be charged with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. Counsel advised the following day and supported the decision to charge A, but said that a further expert should be instructed and that if that expert came to the conclusion that A's driving was not dangerous, the matter should be reconsidered. On 31 August 2005, Cambridgeshire Police received the further expert report, which advised that there should be no prosecution and disagreed with Cambridgeshire's first expert. A rapid decision was taken to discontinue A's prosecution and A was informed; the case was formally discontinued on 20 September 2005.
A brought a claim against the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. At first instance the claim was dismissed. The Judge found that the arrest was lawful and that the withholding of the Parker report from the arresting officer was irrelevant to the lawfulness of the arrest. He found that there was reasonable and
probable cause for the prosecution so it did not amount to a malicious prosecution. A appealed, contending that in the light of the Parker report (which, he argued, was equivalent to the further expert report which had led to the discontinuance of the prosecution) the judge was wrong to find that (1) there were reasonable grounds to suspect that A had committed the offence and (2) the prosecution was brought reasonable and probable cause.
Richards LJ:
1. In December 2004 the appellant, a police constable serving with the Lincolnshire Police, was the driver of a police car involved in a police pursuit which ended when the pursued vehicle crashed, killing a passenger in the vehicle. Most of the pursuit took place in Lincolnshire but the accident happened just over the county border in Cambridgeshire. An investigation carried out by the Cambridgeshire Police under the management of the Independent
Police Complaints Commission ("the IPCC") led to the appellant being arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and in due course being charged with that offence, but the prosecution was subsequently discontinued. The appellant then brought a claim against the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. That claim was dismissed by HHJ O'Brien following a 4-day trial.
2. This appeal is brought against the dismissal of the claim. The main issues in the appeal are whether the judge was wrong to find (1) that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the appellant had committed the offence, and (2) that the prosecution was brought with reasonable and probable cause. They involve mainly factual questions, but there is also a point under (1) about the position in law if, although the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, the officer who briefed him has failed to provide him with relevant information that would undermine those grounds. In the event that the judge's finding on (2) is reversed, there is a further issue, raised by a respondent's notice, as to the judge's finding on the question whether the prosecution was brought with improper motive.
The facts
3. At about mid-day on 23 December 2004 the appellant and his passenger, PC McCulley, were on duty in a marked police car. They saw a white Cavalier car driven, as was later found, by Ambrose Farrell and in which Gareth Moore was travelling as a passenger. The appellant flashed his lights to indicate to Mr Farrell that he wanted him to stop. Mr Farrell, however, drove off at speed and a pursuit ensued. The pursuing officers did not know whether the occupants of the Cavalier had committed any criminal offence, though it seems that the vehicle was suspected of having been involved in an earlier incident, and in the course of the pursuit the officers were informed that the vehicle had not been taxed.
4. The pursuit, which lasted just over 11 minutes, was filmed on video by a camera in the police car, and there was also an audio recording of exchanges between the officers and their central control. The pursuit took place in part through built-up areas and in part on open rural roads, at speeds that reached a maximum of 113mph. There was a considerable amount of traffic on the road, in both directions, and the pursuit involved both cars in numerous overtaking manoeuvres. On occasions the police car got very close to the Cavalier, whilst at other times the distance between them was greater and there were also some vehicles between them. The pursuit ended when Mr Farrell lost control of the Cavalier and it crashed off the road, killing Mr Moore. At that point the police car was several hundred yards behind, with other vehicles between them.
5. Mr Farrell was arrested and was subsequently charged. In due course he pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment.
6. Because of the involvement of police officers, the incident was referred to the IPCC by the Lincolnshire Police. It was initially expected that the same force would conduct the investigation under the supervision of the IPCC. It therefore commissioned one of its traffic experts, PC Parker, to prepare a report on the incident.
7. On 20 January 2005, however, the IPCC decided that it should manage rather than supervise the investigation, so as to exercise an increased level of control over it, and that the investigation should be conducted by the Cambridgeshire Police as an independent force. The officer put in charge of the investigation was Det Supt Hankins; his number 2 in the team was DCI Joyce; and his number 3 was Insp Etherington.
8. The Cambridgeshire Police commissioned a report from a traffic expert in their own force, PC Price.
9. On 3 February 2005, before a report was received from PC Price, the senior officers in the investigation decided that in due course, at the appropriate moment, the appellant would be arrested and interviewed. This was supported by the IPCC, though there was a difference of view as to the amount of notice the appellant should be given. A meeting for the purposes of the arrest and interview was planned for 1 March but was postponed to 16 March at the request of the appellant's solicitor.
10. On 2 March a report was received from PC Price. It was critical of the appellant. It identified a number of occasions during the pursuit when, in PC Price's opinion, the police car got too close to the Cavalier, leaving insufficient stopping distance and also placing undue pressure on the driver of the Cavalier (the concern being that this may result in increased speeds and greater risk to the safety of the public). The pursuit also involved the police car committing an offence by crossing solid double white lines while overtaking. Further, it was PC Price's belief that, in adherence to the relevant ACPO guidelines, the pursuit should have been discontinued after about 7 minutes because there were no pursuit resolution tactics readily available, the continuance of the pursuit could not be justified in relation to the offences committed or suspected to have been committed, and the pursuit had become too dangerous to continue.
11. On 10 March PC Parker produced the report that had been commissioned from him by the Lincolnshire Police. It was much less critical of the appellant, concluding in relation to him:
"Constable Alford's standard of driving on the whole was of a satisfactory standard and...
To continue reading
Request your trial