Craig Bell (ap) V. The Chief Constable Of Strathclyde Police And Others

Pursuer: Ms Hood, advocate; Drummond Miller LLP

First Defender: MacPherson, solicitor-advocate; Simpson & Marwick

No appearance for the Second Defenders

22 October 2010

[1] With the benefit of legal aid the pursuer seeks substantial damages from the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police and from the Scottish Ministers, the latter being responsible for the acts and omissions of the Scottish Prison Service. He avers that on 12 November 2007, while employed as a prison officer at Polmont Young Offenders Institute, he was required to search the property of new detainees. That property had previously been searched, checked and placed in sealed bags by police officers. While searching a jacket, the pursuer's finger was jabbed by a dirty syringe. He was informed that he was at risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Although blood tests seemed clear, it is averred that the pursuer became increasingly concerned, stressed and unable to sleep. By early December 2007 he was considered to be unfit for work. Six months after the incident, the pursuer received confirmation that he had not contracted any disease as a result of the incident.

[2] The pursuer avers that as a consequence of the above events, he now suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder combined with a severe level of reactive depression and high anxiety. He has been unable to work since early December 2007. He began to drink to excess and was convicted of a breach of the peace. His employment was terminated in November 2008. He now seeks damages in the sum of £550,000. The pursuer's statement of valuation of claim quantifies solatium at £45,000; past wage loss at just under £36,500; and loss of pension rights at over £66,000. Future wage loss and services are yet to be assessed, but given the relatively young age of the pursuer, the former might amount to a very substantial claim.

[3] The Chief Constable has invited the court to remit the action to the sheriff court under and in terms of section 14 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985, which provides:

"The Court of Session may in relation to an action before it which could competently have been brought before a sheriff remit the action (at its own instance or on the application of any parties to the action) to the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the action could have been brought, where, in the opinion of the court, the nature of the action makes it appropriate to do so."

The court was informed that the Scottish Ministers consent to the application.

The Submissions for the Chief Constable
[4] On behalf of the Chief Constable, Mr MacPherson accepted that the action involves a substantial claim. Liability has been admitted on a joint basis, but contributory negligence and quantum are live issues. The pursuer lives in Kirkintilloch. If the case had been raised in the sheriff court, it would have been dealt with by in-house solicitors at considerably less expense than is involved in defending proceedings in the Court of Session. Those costs will not be recoverable from the legally aided pursuer. The Chief Constable's insurance arrangements are such that his responsibility for costs and damages has a limit of £100,000, after which there is insurance cover. Thus, he has no direct financial interest if the total value exceeds that sum. However, that apart, all the costs of the action will be met by the public purse. It was submitted that the impact on the public purse is relevant to the present application since it bears on "the nature of the action" within the meaning of section 14 of the 1985 Act. The pursuer seeks a proof, not issues, and the new sheriff court chapter 36 procedures mirror chapter 43 in the Court of Session, so there are no procedural advantages for the pursuer in litigating in the Court of Session. Mr MacPherson's information was that a four day diet could be allocated in the sheriff court in early 2011.

[5] I was referred to Strathclyde Police Authority's revenue budget medium term forecast, dated 26 August 2010, and in particular to paragraph 3.1 which states:

"The informed view is that across the public sector funding cuts will be much greater than previously expected. With approximately 88% of current gross budget resources allocated to payroll costs the impact of cuts will be particularly severe and inevitably have a significant impact on payroll related elements of expenditure both in terms of numbers of staff/officers and conditions of service."

The court was told that given the severe challenges facing the authority's budget and spending commitments, the Chief Constable "feels bound" to make the application for a remit. The pursuer would suffer no prejudice if the motion was granted. In the course of his submissions, Mr MacPherson...