Ashleigh-Nicholson v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE DYSON,MR JUSTICE WALL,LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS,LORD JUSTICE KEENE |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 1562,[2002] EWCA Civ 1300,[2002] EWCA Civ 995 |
| Date | 22 October 2002 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | B2/2001/2680,NO: B2/2001/2680 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 1300
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT
(Mr Recorder Harbage)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Aldous and
Lord Justice Keene
NO: B2/2001/2680
THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION BY EITHER PARTY
rd August 2002
This case was set down for 10 o'clock. Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson, a litigant in person, has not arrived. It is now half past ten. This is the second occasion on which he has not arrived. In those circumstances I propose to give judgment as I have read the papers. The order will not be drawn up for ten days to enable Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson to seek to have it set aside if he so wishes.
This is an application brought by Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson for permission to appeal against the order of Mr Recorder Harbage in the County Court at Birmingham dated 23rd November 2001, which order gave judgment in favour of the first defendant, the Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police, and the second defendant, the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police. It gave judgment against him in an action in which Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson had sought damages for unlawful arrest by the Staffordshire Police on 24th March 1997, unlawful detention by the Staffordshire Police on 24th March, unlawful detention by West Midlands Police on 25th March, unlawful arrest by the West Midlands police on 17th April, unlawful detention on 17th April and generally damages against those defendants for unlawful detention.
The basic facts are not in dispute and are as follows. On 19th October 1996 the West Midlands police were telephoned by Belinda Nicholson, the former wife of Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson. She complained that Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson had caused damage to her car with acid. That I will refer to as the "acid complaint". On 2nd November 1996 Belinda Nicholson reported to West Midlands Police that Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson was forcing her front door with a chisel or a crow bar.
On 5th November 1996 Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson was interviewed in relation to the chisel complaint. He was arrested by Police Constable Taylor at Rose Road police station, which is in the West Midlands Police jurisdiction. He was later charged with criminal damage to two window locks.
On 24th March 1997 Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson was arrested by Police Constable Harvey of Staffordshire Police in response to an entry which related to the acid complaint. That entry had been placed on the Police National Computer by West Midlands Police. The arrest took place at Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson's home at about 7.10 p.m. that evening. He was then taken to Burton police station at approximately 7.20. He was detained there until he was transferred into the custody of West Midlands police officers at one minute past 12 on 25th March 1997. Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson was then taken to Rose Road police station in Birmingham, where he arrived at approximately 1.29 a.m. on 25th March. He was detained there until his release on section 47(3) bail at approximately 11.30 later that day. Thus he spent approximately 16 hours in police custody. He was neither interviewed nor charged, but was given bail to return to Rose Road police station on 17th April 1997 at 1.00 p.m..
Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson answered his bail on 17th April 1997. He was arrested by Police Constable Withy, an officer of West Midlands police, then swiftly dearrested and released without charge. This all happened in the space of approximately 15 minutes.
There was at the trial considerable dispute between Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson and West Midlands Police as to when an entry was made on the Police National Computer concerning the acid complaint. This incident had been reported to West Midlands Police on 19th October 1996 and at some stage the information contained in the Police National Computer came to the knowledge of the Staffordshire Police. In particular, there was a dispute as to whether the computer mentioned that there was a warrant for his arrest.
Mr Recorder Harbage heard evidence from the two police constables and from Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson. He had to consider the question of the warrant, and since the entry on the computer regarding the report of the acid on the car on 19th October and most reports and statements which were made available at the time no longer existed, he had to rely upon the written and oral evidence. In those circumstances he had to make up his mind as to whose evidence was the most reliable.
The Recorder, having seen the witnesses, preferred the evidence of both police officers to that of Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson. In his judgment he said, in relation to an account as to whether a summons was provided by Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson:
"I reject his account of this part of the incident and concerning what happened at Burton police station, I find the claimant to be vague and inconsistent. He claims that he was told he was arrested on warrant. Indeed, his submission now is that the Police National Computer entry, rightly or more probably wrongly, contained reference to a warrant. On a balance of probabilities, I find that he was not told about a warrant at the time of his arrest. I have heard evidence from Police Constable Harvey and Sergeant Fellows, who again I find to be straightforward and honest witnesses. Their evidence is that a warrant was never mentioned."
In relation to the issue of which party held the summons, to which I have shortly referred, the Recorder preferred the evidence of the police that Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson possessed the summons and showed it to Staffordshire Police during his detention. Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson had claimed that he possessed no such summons at the time and had the summons been in his possession it would have been written down on the property schedule of the police.
The Recorder held that the information about Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson held on the Police National Computer must have been entered by PC Withy after 5th November 1996. He further decided that the reason for the arrest had not been a warrant, as he believed the evidence of Police Constable Harvey and Sergeant Fellows that a warrant was never mentioned to Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson upon his arrest. I have read the essential part of his judgment on that matter.
The Recorder also held that he was satisfied that Police Constable Harvey thought that the Police National Computer report gave him reasonable grounds for suspicion that Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson had committed an arrestable offence, that the Police National Computer was objective justification for the officer making the arrest and that Police Constable Harvey exercised his discretion properly.
Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson's account that he was not given full reasons for his arrest until his release on the morning of 25th March 1997 was completely rejected. Therefore, the Recorder chose not to have regard to the authority of Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573. The Recorder concluded his judgment by ruling that the detention of Mr Ashleigh-Nicholson by both the Staffordshire Police and the West Midlands Police was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v Panini UK Ltd
...EWCA Civ 995" class="content__heading content__heading--depth1"> [2002] EWCA Civ 995 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION (MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH) Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Just......
-
Whitbread Group Plc v C & E Commissioners
...intended to explain what the word means are generally unhelpful; see Pannini UK Ltd. v The Football Association Premier League [2002] EWCA CIV 995 (C.A.). The Tribunal plainly understood what was required to be determined, namely was the supply by Costa catering? It came to the conclusion t......
-
Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc v Acciona SA and Others
...me. I have in mind the Court of Appeal decision in The Football Association Premier League Limited and others v. Panini UK Limited [2002] EWCA CIV. 995 and in particular paragraph 39 where Mummery LJ said this:- "As to the "incidental inclusion" point I agree with Chadwick LJ's full argumen......