Bangura v Loughborough University
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicol |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1503 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 19 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB/2014/0410 |
[2016] EWHC 1503 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Nicol
Case No: QB/2014/0410
Mr Masters appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Knight appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is an application by the claimant for permission to re-open his application for permission to appeal against an order of Master Yoxall, which was dated 24 th June 2014, and for various other relief.
Master Yoxall granted summary judgment in favour of the University of Loughborough, the second defendant in the claim as originally brought. He subsequently ordered the claimant to pay the second defendant's costs.
The procedural history and background to the claim is lengthy and I shall try to summarise it. In 2008 the claimant became a student at the University of Loughborough. In March and April 2010 there were a number of complaints of sexual assault against male and female students. In particular a complaint of rape was reported to the Leicestershire Police on 30 th March 2013.
On 3 rd May 2010 an informant, who was neither an employee nor officer of the university, approached the university's security staff and said the claimant had behaved and said things which were suspicious, in connection with the sexual assaults. The university's security staff called the police. Because the informant was nervous the security staff remained with the informant during the police interview. The informant gave at least part of the claimant's name, though probably not all of it. The informant was also able to give the claimant's address in Loughborough.
The security staff filed an incident report which noted:
"The police have taken the suspect's details and will sent (in the report it is S-E-N-T, but that is obviously a mistake for send) the appropriate Data Protection documents the next time a PCSO or a police officer visits the campus."
The details of the claimant which were provided to the police were a copy of his information, recorded by the university on a registration form. That gave his full name, his Loughborough address — which as I have said, the informant had already given — his date of birth and his address in London.
At some stage the university also received a form dated 4 th May 2010. This is a pre-printed form with the headline: "Request for personal data to assist with enquiries" and its addressed to the security office, CID of Leicestershire Constabulary and had been completed by DC Fell, who was one of the investigating officers, and was countersigned on the same day by another police officer called Wheeler. The pre-printed form includes a space for a response, that is blank on the copy in the university's files. As I say a copy of that form was on the university's file, although the university is not able to say when or how it was received, except that the university does now accept that it must have arrived after data about the claimant was provided to the police on or about 3 rd May.
The police went to the address of the claimant at his home in Loughborough and he was arrested there on 5 th May 2010. He was bailed. It is right to record that he was never charged with either rape or sexual assault. Indeed, he has been exonerated of any involvement with such offences.
The claimant began these proceedings by issuing a claim form on 14 th August 2013 in the High Court. The first defendant was the Leicestershire Police, the second defendant was the university, the third defendant was the Loughborough Student's Union.
The Particulars of Claim alleged against the second defendant, the university, a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 and also the claim in contract. Specifically the claimant alleged that the disclosure of his personal details and photographs to the police on 3 rd May 2010, without his consent, had been either contrary to the 1998 Act or a breach of contract.
As I have said, on 24 th June 2010 Master Yoxall granted the university summary judgment and dismissed the claim against it. Master Yoxall also granted summary judgment in favour of the third defendant. He rejected a like application by the first defendants, the Leicestershire Police.
The claimant applied for permission to appeal Master Yoxall's order. The application was refused by Globe J first, on 30 th October 2014. Globe J said the application was wholly without merit, which meant, pursuant to CPR Rule 52.3(4a) the claimant had no right to renew his application orally. Nevertheless, the claimant sought to rely on further documentation, which he set out in his letter to the court of 27 th January 2015. He was trying to persuade Globe J to reconsider his decision.
By an order dated 6 th February 2015, Globe J reiterated that permission was refused. The application was still considered to be wholly without merit.
The claimant tried yet again in an email of 12 th February 2015, but Globe J directed that the matter was concluded and no further correspondence from the claimant would be answered or acknowledged.
The claim against the Leicestershire Police has continued. At a case management conference on 27 th March 2015, Master Yoxall ordered it to be transferred to the Central London County Court.
On 3 rd June 2015, DC Fell made a witness statement in which he records his dealings with the university. Paragraph 20 of his witness statement said this:
"I obtained information from the university regarding Mr Bangura by way of a Data Protection Act request. I had a working understanding with the head of security (that is Mr Kennedy) and he would sometimes give me information straightaway, knowing that a DPA form would be provided subsequently. This occurred when he knew we were investigating a crime, as here."
On 14 th September 2015, Mr Recorder Marsden, sitting at the Central London County Court, directed that the police should file a further witness statement which set out the source of the police's information regarding the claimant's date of birth, his address in Loughborough, his address in London and his physical description.
On 18 th September 2015, DC Fell made a second witness statement, in which he said:
"I was present at the security office at Loughborough University on 3 rd May 2010 when an informant identified the claimant by name as a potential suspect for a rape and a number of sexual assaults that had occurred on the campus. His address in Loughborough and physical description were also provided by the informant. The claimant's date of birth and home address in London were provided by Loughborough University security personnel, Roger Kennedy, at the same time and place."
Yet further directions were made by Her Honour Judge Hampton, sitting at Northampton on 31 st March 2016. Soole J dismissed an application for permission to appeal by the claimant against the orders of Her Honour Judge Hampton and Recorder King, he did so on 17 th March 2016.
On 26 th April 2016, Her Honour Judge Hampton heard further applications by the claimant. Relevant to the present issue the claimant had asked her to allow the university of Loughborough to be rejoined as a defendant. She refused, saying that permission to appeal Master Yoxall's order had been refused by Globe J. She also appeared to believe that it was a matter that Soole J had also considered, though I do not have a copy of an order directly saying as much from Soole J.
In effect therefore, the claimant is seeking four things: (a) permission to re-open his application for permission to appeal, which was refused by Globe J, an order to that effect would have to be made under CPR Rule 52.17; (b) permission to rely on fresh evidence, an order to that effect would have to be made under Rule 52.11.2; (c) permission to appeal Master Yoxall's order and then; (d) permission to add two individuals, Roger Kennedy and Mr Spink as further defendants to the claim. I can postpone dealing with the addition of Mr Spink and Mr Kennedy until later in this judgment.
So far as the other matters are concerned, the relevant test for each, taking them in reverse order is as follows: permission to appeal will only be granted if an appeal has a realistic prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason why permission should be granted — see Rule 52.36. (2) By rule 52.11 the normal course is that the appeal is decided on the basis of the evidence which was heard before the lower court. There has to be some reason to depart from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
High Court Permits University's Contravention Of Its Own Privacy Policy
...High Court in Bangura v Loughborough University [2016] EWHC 1503 (QB) ruled 19 May that Loughborough University acted lawfully under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA") in supplying Leicestershire Police with the registration form of a student suspected of sexual assault and rape. In contr......
-
High Court Permits University’s Contravention of Its Own Privacy Policy
...Court in Bangura v Loughborough University [2016] EWHC 1503 (QB) ruled 19 May that Loughborough University acted lawfully under the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”) in supplying Leicestershire Police with the registration form of a student suspected of sexual assault and rape. In contravent......