Calveley v Merseyside Police Chief
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Oliver of Aylmerton,Lord Goff of Chieveley,Lord Lowry,Lord Bridge of Harwich,Lord Ackner |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 1989 |
| Date | 16 March 1989 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1989] UKHL J0316-1
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Lord Ackner
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Lord Lowry
House of Lords
My Lords,
The three actions in which these appeals arise are brought by police officers or former police officers against the Chief Constables of their respective forces. I shall refer to them as "the Calveley action, "the Worrall action" and "the Park action." Save for certain paragraphs of the statement of claim in the Park action which assert a claim to damages for malicious procurement of a search warrant, the plaintiffs' claims have been struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The order to strike out in the Park action was made by Master Hodgson. An appeal from that order came before Sir Neil Lawson, sitting as judge of the Queen's Bench Division, and was heard together with applications by the defendant to stike out in the other two actions. Sir Neil Lawson dismissed the Park appeal and ordered that the writs and statements of claim be struck out in the Calveley and Worrall actions. Appeals in all three cases were heard together by the Court of Appeal (Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R., Glidewell and Staughton L.JJ.) [1988] 3 W.L.R. 1020 who affirmed Sir Neil Lawson, but gave leave to appeal to your Lordships House.
The appeals now brought raise issues as to whether certain provisions of the Police Act 1964 and the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1977 ( S.I. 1977 No. 580) create a civil cause of action for breach of statutory duty and whether officers performing certain functions under the Act and Regulations owe a duty of care at common law to those in the position of the plaintiffs which founds a cause of action in negligence. These issues arise in all three appeals. In the Park action a separate issue arises as to whether the facts pleaded are capable of founding the tort of misfeasance in public office.
It will be convenient, before referring to the facts, to set out the provisions of the Act and Regulations which are primarily in question. Sections 48(1) and 49(1) of the Act of 1964 provide as follows:
"48.-(1) The chief officer of police for any police area shall be liable in respect of torts committed by constables under his direction and control in the performance or purported performance of their functions in like manner as a master is liable in respect of torts committed by his servants in the course of their employment, and accordingly shall in respect of any such tort be treated for all purposes as a joint tortfeasor."
"49.-(1) Where the chief officer of police for any police area receives a complaint from a member of the public against a member of the police force for that area he shall (unless the complaint alleges an offence with which the member of the police force has then been charged) forthwith record the complaint and cause it to be investigated and for that purpose may, and shall if directed by the Secretary of State, request the chief officer of police for any other police area to provide an officer of the police force for that area to carry out the investigation."
The Regulations of 1977, which were in force at the material time, but have now been superseded by the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 ( S.I. 1985 No. 518), set out in Schedule 2 the provisions of the discipline code to which members of police forces are subject and provide for the formulation, hearing and determination of charges alleging offences against discipline under that code and punishment of such offences. Regulations 6, 7, and 24 provide, so far as material, as follows:
"6.-(1) Where a report, allegation or complaint is received from which it appears that an offence may have been committed by a member of a police force (hereinafter referred to as 'the member subject to investigation'), the matter shall be referred to an investigating officer who shall cause it to be investigated …"
"7. The investigating officer shall, as soon as is practicable (without prejudicing his or any other investigation of the matter), in writing inform the member subject to investigation of the report, allegation or complaint and give him a written notice —
( a) informing him that he is not obliged to say anything concerning the matter, but that he may, if he so desires, make a written or oral statement concerning the matter to the investigating officer or to the chief officer concerned, and
( b) warning him that if he makes such a statement it may be used in any subsequent disciplinary proceedings."
"24.-(1) Where a report, allegation or complaint is received from which it appears that a member of a police force may have committed a disciplinary or criminal offence the chief officer concerned may suspend that member from membership of the force and from his office as constable, whether or not the matter has then been investigated, and in such case he shall be suspended until —
( a) the chief officer decides otherwise;
( b) it is decided that the member shall not be charged with a disciplinary offence; or
( c) the member has been so charged and either all the charges have been dismissed or … punishments have been imposed,
whichever first occurs."
We must, of course, assume the facts as pleaded to be true. But it is unnecessary for the purpose of resolving the issue in the appeals to set out more than a very brief summary of the facts in each action on which the claims for damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence depend.
The Calveley action
On 21 June 1981 the five plaintiffs in this action were concerned in the arrest of five men. The men arrested made complaints about the conduct of the plaintiffs. The complainants were prosecuted and tried by the magistrates' court. The plaintiffs gave evidence for the prosecution. The complainants were acquitted on 23 December 1981. The formal notices to the plaintiffs, required to be given by regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1977, of the original complaints and of other matters alleged against them arising from the incident on 21 June 1981 and the subsequent prosecution and trial of the complainants were not given until dates between 28 November and 12 December 1983. The plaintiffs were later charged with offences against the discipline code of abuse of authority, falsehood and prevarication. On 26 September 1984 they were found guilty at a hearing before the Chief Constable and dismissed from the force. They instituted proceedings for judicial review of the Chief Constable's decision. They succeeded before the Court of Appeal (Sir John Donaldson M.R., May and Glidewell L.JJ.) who, in judgments delivered on 27 November 1985, quashed the decision of the Chief Constable on the ground that the plaintiffs had been irremediably prejudiced by the delay in giving them notice of the matters alleged against them: Reg. v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, Ex parte Calveley [1986] Q.B. 424. On 2 December 1985 the plaintiffs were reinstated and received their back pay and allowances for the period since their dismissal. The plaintiffs now claim damages for "anxiety, vexation and injury to reputation" and special damages for loss of overtime earnings in the period from dismissal to reinstatement on the basis that these were caused by breaches of statutory duty under the Act and Regulations or negligent conduct of the investigation.
The Worrall action
The three plaintiffs in this action were concerned in an incident on 12 September 1981 in which a man named Forwood was arrested. Forwood and other members of the public made complaints about the conduct of the plaintiffs. On 19 July 1982 Forwood was tried and convicted by the magistrates' court of assaulting the plaintiff Worrall. On 10 January 1983 this conviction was affirmed by the Crown Court. The plaintiffs gave evidence for the prosecution in these proceedings. On 7 July 1983 Forwood's conviction was quashed by the Divisional Court on the ground that he had not been informed of the relevant complaints made about the plaintiffs' conduct by other members of the public or given the names and addresses of those complainants. On 25 November 1983 the plaintiffs were suspended from duty under regulation 24. Pursuant to regulations 35 and 69 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Police Regulations 1979 ( S.I. 1979 No. 1470) they received their pay and certain allowances whilst suspended. Following an investigation the plaintiff Worrall was charged with assaulting Forwood and all three plaintiffs were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and perjury. They were tried and acquitted of all charges by the Crown Court on 3 December 1984 and returned to duty on the following day. On return to duty they were entitled under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Regulation of 1979 to receive any relevant allowances which had been withheld during the period of their suspension. The plaintiffs in this action also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rod James-Bowen and Others v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 830 per Lord Steyn at p 837.) 25 This decision should be contrasted with Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police [1989] 1 AC 1228. Following their reinstatement, police officers, against whom disciplinary proceedings had been taken, ......
-
Hill et al. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board et al., (2007) 230 O.A.C. 260 (SCC)
...[2001] E.W.J. No. 5088; [2001] EWCA Civ. 1699, refd to. [para. 120]. Calveley et al. v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, [1989] 1 All E.R. 1025; [1989] A.C. 1228; 103 N.R. 125 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Emanuele v. Hedley (1997), 137 F.L.R. 339 (S.C.A.C.T.), refd to. [para. 121]. Cour......
-
J.D. v. East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust et al., (2005) 337 N.R. 74 (HL)
...Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust, 2004 SLT 1200, refd to. [paras. 50, 118]. Calveley et al. v. Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, [1989] 1 A.C. 1228; 103 N.R. 125 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 77, Rich (Marc) & Co. AG et al. v. Bishop Rock Marine Co. et al., [1997] A.C. 211; 185 N.R. 265 ......
-
Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, (2000) 257 N.R. 1 (HL)
...10]. Calveley v. Chief Constable of Merseyside; Worrall v. Chief Constable of Merseyside; Park v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, [1989] A.C. 1228 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Council, [1995] 2 A.C. 633; 185 N.R. 173 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 120].......
-
Vicarious liability litigation duties
...v Com- missioner of Police of the Metropolis judgment, above n 2, at [25]: Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police [1989] AC 1228; [1989] 1 All ER 13 Govier v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) [2017] QCA 12; BC201700555. The content of this article is intended to pr......
-
Termination of Appointments to Public Offices
...authority.Ontheinsufficiencyofthis case tosupporttheviewthatbreachofarighttonaturaljustice isactionable see ECampbell, above n275at388-90.[1989] AC 1228. 1996 Termination ofAppointmentstoPublicOffices39judicialreview278andsubsequentre-instatement.279 The statutorydutyalleged tohavebeeninfri......
-
Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law
...(1984) 155 CLR 549 at 587 (Deane J); Attia v BritishGas plc [1988] 1 QB 304 at 311 (Dillon LJ); Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside[1989] AC 1228 at 1238 (Lord Bridge); Teff, above n. 13 at 4–10.43 McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] AC 410 at 431.The Journal of Criminal Anxiety and depression......
-
Table of Cases, Volume 83, 2010
...216 69Brooks v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis [2005] 2 All ER489 12, 15, 22Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [1989] 1 AC 1228 15Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 84Carmichele v The Minister of Safety and Security [2001] ZACC 22 12, 17Chief Const......
-
The Indirect Influence of Politics on Tort Liability of Public Authorities in English Law
...UKHL 24, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1495.Broome v. Cassell & Co. Ltd. (No. 1) [1972] A.C. 1027 (H.L.).Calveley v. Chief Constable of Merseyside [1989] A.C. 1228 (H.L.).Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605 (H.L.).Cooper v. Hobart [2000] S.C.C. 79, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 537.Custom and Excise Co......