Bodden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE BELDAM,LORD JUSTICE WOOLF,THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
Judgment Date02 November 1989
Judgment citation (vLex)[1989] EWCA Civ J1102-2
Docket Number89/1043
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date02 November 1989
Kendal Bodden
Respondent
and
The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Appellant

[1989] EWCA Civ J1102-2

Before:

The Master of the Rolls

(Lord Donaldson)

Lord Justice Woolf

Lord Justice Beldam

89/1043

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE LIPFRIEND)

Royal Courts of Justice

MR. JOHN BROOKE-SMITH (instructed by C. S. Porteous Esq., New Scotland Yard) appeared for the Appellant (Defendant).

MR. ADRIAN FULFORD (instructed by Messrs. Fisher Meredith) appeared for the Respondent (Plaintiff).

LORD JUSTICE BELDAM
1

This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police from judgment against him in the sum of £1,500 in an action brought in the Westminster County Court by Mr. Kendal Bodden, the respondent, who claimed damages for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault. The judgment was entered on the basis of agreed facts following a ruling on a point of law tried as a preliminary issue.

2

Shortly after 10.00 a.m. on 29th August 1986 Mr. Barrington-Black M.S.P. was hearing evidence in committal proceedings in court no. 3 at Bow Street Magistrates' Court. The proceedings were suddenly interrupted by the noise of a loudhailer which prevented the magistrate from hearing the evidence that was being given by the witness in the witness box. As the noise did not stop, the magistrate directed Inspector Hoodless of the Metropolitan Police who was in court to bring the person responsible for the interruption of the proceedings before him.

3

The noise which drowned the evidence in the court came from a loudhailer which was being used by the respondent to address a crowd of demonstrators in Broad Court which runs close by Bow Street Magistrates Court. The respondent's purpose in using the loudhailer was apparently related to the trial of two persons to be held at Bow Street that morning, but the proceedings were not those being heard by Mr. Barrington-Black. Inspector Hoodless and another officer went to Broad Court and approached the respondent. Inspector Hoodless showed him his warrant card, told him he was a police officer and that he was disrupting proceedings in one of the courts and said that the magistrate had directed him to bring the respondent before him. The respondent, who was blind, asked the officer's name and number and was then taken by the arm. Thereupon a struggle ensued, in which other officers went to the assistance of Inspector Hoodless.

4

In due course the officers succeeded in getting the respondent into the court building and up the stairs into court no. 3 before the magistrate. The magistrate then asked the respondent if he would cease making the noise and the respondent agreed. On leaving the court, however, the respondent was arrested for assaulting one of the police officers and obstructing the other in the execution of their duty. In due course he was charged and was later released at about 2.15 in the afternoon.

5

On 21st November, when his case came before the court, the prosecution offered no evidence against the respondent, who on 18th September of the following year issued the proceedings in the Westminster County Court claiming damages, including exemplary or punitive damages for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault. By his defence the appellant contended that any arrest or detention of the respondent was lawful and that the degree of force used by the officers was reasonable in all the circumstances. He further contended that the conduct of the respondent was a contempt of court within the meaning of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, that under that Act the magistrate had jurisdiction to instruct the police officers to bring the respondent before him and by implication that they were accordingly acting under the lawful directions of an officer of the court.

6

The respondent had applied for, and obtained, an order that his claim in Westminster County Court be tried by a jury but, when the case was called on before His Honour Judge Lipfriend on 18th July 1988, the parties requested the judge to decide a preliminary question of law and for this purpose made certain admissions before him. For the respondent it was conceded that the noise made by him interrupted the proceedings of the court. For the appellant it was conceded that, if the magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the plaintiff's contempt of court, then the arrest which was subsequently effected by the two police officers was unlawful. The appellant abandoned an additional plea that the arrest could be justified on the basis that the respondent was committing a breach of the peace and could be arrested under the Justice of the Peace Act 1361. It was further conceded that the Magistrates' Court was an inferior court and had no inherent jurisdiction to deal with contempt of court. Accordingly, the scope of its jurisdiction to deal with such matters fell to be determined under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Having heard argument, the judge held that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to require the respondent to be brought before him, that the two officers concerned were not acting in the course of their duty and that the arrest and detention of the respondent was unlawful. On the basis of this ruling the appellant submitted to judgment for damages in an agreed sum of £1,500 and accordingly judgment was entered against him for this sum with costs. The judge gave the reasons for his judgment on 21st July. In giving those reasons, the judge, in my view correctly, concluded that the question he had to decide depended on the true construction of section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Section 12 is headed "Offences of Contempt of Magistrates' Courts". The material subsections are:

"12(1) A magistrates' court has jurisdiction under this section to deal with any person who—

  • (a) wilfully insults the justice or justices, any witness before or officer of the court or any solicitor or counsel having business in the court, during his or their sitting or attendance in court or in going to or returning from the court; or

  • (b) wilfully interrupts the proceedings of the court or otherwise misbehaves in court.

(2) In any such case the court may order any officer of the court, or any constable, to take the offender into custody and detain him until the rising of the court; and the court may, if it thinks fit, commit the offender to custody for a specified period not exceeding one month or impose on him a fine not exceeding £500, or both."

7

The basis of the very careful judgment given by the judge after reviewing the legislative history of the words used and considering the submissions of the parties was that, on their true construction, the words of section 12(1)(b) "who wilfully interrupts the proceedings of the court" were qualified by the words in the second part of the subsection "or otherwise misbehaves in court" so that only interruptions of the proceedings caused by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Harris v Harris; Attorney General v Harris
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Division
    • Invalid date
    ...[1999] 1 FLR 505. B v UK[2001] 2 FCR 221, ECt HR. Barfod v Denmark (1989) 13 EHRR 493, ECt HR. Bodden v Comr of Police of the Metropolis [1990] 2 QB 397, [1989] 3 All ER 833, [1990] 2 WLR 76, C (a minor) (wardship: medical treatment) (No 2), Re [1990] FCR 220, [1990] Fam 39, [1989] 2 All ER......
  • Ward v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 10 May 2005
    ...the jurisdiction in a judicial manner', specifically the power to direct that the person be brought before him: see Bodden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1990] 2 QB 397. In section 135(1), for example, the power to enter the premises in question must also include the power to ......
  • R v Huggins (Raffael)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 18 January 2007
  • Neville Pole d/b/a PL Consultancy v The Licensing Magistrate
    • British Virgin Islands
    • High Court (British Virgin Islands)
    • 27 March 2018
    ...there can be implied into a statutory power such incidental powers as are necessary for its operation. 31 Thus, in Bodden v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 32, a magistrate's power to order the detention of someone who willfully interrupted the proceedings of the court included ‘al......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT