Anthony Crook v The Chief Constable of Essex Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Her Honour Judge Taylor |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 988 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 02 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLQ/14/0546 |
[2015] EWHC 988 (QBD)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Her Honour Judge Taylor sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Case No: TLQ/14/0546
Miss Morris appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Stagg appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Judgment Approved
The Claimant, Anthony Crook, brings claims for damages against the Defendant, the Chief Constable of Essex Police in respect of breach of confidence, breach of the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and for breach of his rights to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998 arising from a press release by Essex Police on 3 August of 2010. The claims are brought against the Defendant as the Chief Officer of Essex Police having responsibility for the conduct of his officers by virtue of section 88 of the Police Act 1996 and as vicariously liable for their acts and omissions.
Background.
The Claimant was brought up in Clacton-on-Sea. From 1997 until June 2008, he worked in the City at a number of investment banks and financial institutions, generally on one year contracts. Between 1997 and 1999, he pleaded guilty on three occasions to a number of offences of fare evasion. On one occasion, a photograph was taken of him whilst in custody.
In July 2008 the Claimant went travelling and by 2009 he was in Dubai. On 1 August 2009, on a visit back to the UK, the Claimant had sexual intercourse with X with whom he had had a relationship. The Claimant's evidence was that this was consensual but they subsequently argued about repayment of money that he had lent her. Subsequently, he was informed by a friend, firstly, that X had talked about making an allegation about him, and then later that she had in fact reported him to the police for rape. The Claimant said that on 6 August 2009, he contacted Colchester Police Station in Essex. He spoke to an officer there and was told no allegation had been made. The Claimant told the officer that he was living and working in Dubai and asked if he could leave his details so that if an allegation were made in the future, the police could contact him. His evidence is that he was told he could not do this and the police did not take his details. He said he was made to feel foolish for trying to leave details when an allegation had not been made. There is no Essex Police record of the call. On 17 August 2009, X made an allegation that she had been raped by the Claimant.
Attempts to contact the Claimant prior to publication of the details.
Detective Constable Ford took over as the officer in charge of the investigation of the rape allegation on 17 August 2009. A statement was taken from X on 19 August 2009. In the account she gave, which was recorded in the Sexual Offences Notebook started on 17 August, and in her statement of 19 September, X said that she had known the Claimant earlier and they had more recently made contact via Facebook on which he had an account in his name. In addition she gave him the name and partial address of a mutual friend who was a potential witness.
On 9 September 2009, DC Ford spoke to X and asked for contact details for the Claimant. She told DC Ford that he was most likely in Dubai in The Palm. That was not an address but a part of the layout of Dubai. X gave DC Ford the Claimant's UK mobile phone number and DC Ford said in evidence that the only number she had was the number he called. She was unable to provide him with any other contact details, although he did not specifically ask again about another number. He did not ask X for the Claimant's Facebook account details, or make any enquiries about the mutual friend. No attempts were made to contact the Claimant through either of those means.
DC Ford rang the mobile number and he said that he noted that it was an international dialling tone which was consistent with his information that the Claimant was in Dubai. He terminated the calls before they diverted to voicemail. He left no message on the phone at any stage. He accepted that had the phone rung, it would have come up as 'Unknown' on the Claimant's phone. Even though in the Crime complaint update, which was his log of the investigation, only two occasions are noted, I accept DC Ford's evidence that he rang the mobile phone number several times. However, I also find that he did not do so after 11 March 2010, when no further steps are recorded in the investigation.
DC Ford gave his reason for not leaving a message, that he wished to contact and speak to the Claimant directly to persuade him to return to the UK and did not leave a message as it might alert him to a serious charge and cause him to take flight. Whilst a message might be an option for a witness, it was not for a suspect. However, he conceded with hindsight that it would have been prudent to let the Claimant know that the police were trying to get in touch, and he could have left a message asking the Claimant to ring Essex Police.
Apart from the phone calls, Detective Constable Ford carried out further enquiries to locate and interview the Claimant. On 10 September 2009, he sent an All Ports request to ensure that if the Claimant re-entered the UK, he would be arrested. On the same date, he was circulated as wanted on the Police National Computer.
On 8 December, DC Ford also carried out enquiries which showed the Claimant's bank cards were being used in Dubai. He made enquiries of the Department for Work and Pensions, which on 14 September 2009, provided the Claimant's last address in London and the information that post was being returned from that address. DC Ford made an application for information about the Claimant's phone in order to establish if the phone was operating from Dubai. He thought it might also lead to an address for the Claimant's family which might have led to further enquires and contact through his family. On 10 December 2009, he was notified that the application was unsuccessful.
At that point, DC Ford concluded that the Claimant was in Dubai. His entry for 15 February 2010, in response to an enquiry from the Crime Review Team as to the state of the enquiry reads, "Informed suspect believed to be in Dubai. No further action required as this time." A further Department for Work and Pensions check was carried out in March 2010, but no further enquiries are logged. Apart from two entries relating to a panic alarm, there is nothing to indicate that DCe Ford took further action prior to the press release on 3 August 2010. At the time of the release, he was on holiday and, as a result, was not consulted about it.
The Press Release.
The background to the publication is of importance. The press release of "The 10 Most Wanted Suspects" was a new initiative for the police in the Eastern Division of Essex. Temporary Detective Inspector Balding, who authorised the release of the material, said that this approach had been tried in the south of the county with some success. The Command Team in his area were keen to try the tactic and he was asked by senior officers to organise a press release of this kind. Although press releases had, in his experience, been used before, they were generally where there were problems locating a specific suspect. There were no plans at that stage to make this type of release a weekly occurrence. As Mr Balding put it, this occasion was "suck it and see".
The two criteria which were used to identify cases which would be included in the press release were that the offence was serious or that the suspect was a prolific offender. No other guidance was given.
Once he had identified cases using these criteria, TDI Balding attempted to contact the officers involved in the cases which were to be featured in the release. As DC Ford was on holiday, he could not contact him. In his absence, he did not attempt to look at information available to him on the Claimant's case, such as the statement of X, the crime record or Sexual Offences Notebook. He accepted that he did not know what steps had been taken to contact the Claimant. He looked at the short entry on the Police National Computer. He said that he knew the Claimant was wanted on the Police National Computer and, personally, he would not have taken the step of identifying the Claimant as wanted unless efforts had been made to arrest him, it had not been possible to find him or he was a high risk domestic suspect. On that assumption, he decided to the put the Claimant's name forward. He accepted the decision taken was his but he said that he had not received the best guidance.
TDI Balding accepted, candidly, that he had not given any consideration to the impact on the Claimant. Whilst it was clear to him that the photograph to be used had been taken in custody, he had not been told where it came from and no consideration was given to the circumstances in which it was taken. He agreed that in the case of serious offences, care should be taken and the officer in the case should have been spoken to first. If he had spoken to DC Ford and found that further enquiries could have been made, he would not have put out the press release in relation to the Claimant.
Although TDI Balding took responsibility for the release, as Mr Stagg pointed out on behalf of the Defendant, the list was approved by the Command Team and cleared through the FIB. It then went to the press office, and TDI Balding said that they chose the wording to accompany the photograph. There were a number of variations....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloomberg L.P. v ZXC
...or suspected of a crime should not be released to the public save in exceptional and clearly defined circumstances”. 93 In Crook v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2015] EWHC 988 (QB) a police force issued a press release which stated that the claimant was wanted on suspicion of rape. The ......
-
Barbara Hewson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...in the prevention of crime and disorder is provided by the decision of HHJ Taylor sitting as a Judge of the High Court in Crook v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2015] EWHC 988. In that case the Judge concluded that the inclusion of the claimant's photograph in a "most wanted" press releas......
-
Matthew Graham and Ernest Graham (as the personal representative of Beryl Mildred Graham, Deceased)
...proceedings – see Henderson v Henderson 3 Hare 100 [26] In respect of the last bullet point above it was noted in Hashwani v Jivraj [2015] EWHC 988 at paragraph [59]: “Those who litigate have no right to litigate piecemeal. If a party wishes to be able to rely upon additional or alternative......