Carter v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CAIRNS,LORD JUSTICE LAWTON |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Civ J0113-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 13 January 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Civ J0113-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From: Mr. Justice Kerr, Q.B.D., London
Lord Justice Cairns and
Lord Justice Lawton.
LORD GIFFOLD (instructed by Clinton Davis & Co.) appeared behalf of the Appellant.
MR. GORDO HODGSON (instructed by The Solicitor, Metropolitan Police) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
This is an appeal from Mr. Justice Kerr sitting Judge in Chambers, brought by his leave, in a case where he had before him an application by a Mrs. Carter for leave to bring an action against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. The judge refused the application and the Applicant appeals a appeals that decision.
The reason why such an application was necessary was because of certain provisions of the Mental health Act, 1959. sec. l36 of that Act provides, by subsec.1:
"If a constable finds in a place to which the public have access a person who appears to him to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediately need of care and control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons, remove that person to a place of safety within the meaning of the last foregoing subsection",
and "a place of safety" is defined in the foregoing subsection so as to include a police station and a mental hospital. Subsec.2 of sec.136 provides:
"A person removed to a place of safety under this section may be detained there for a period not exceeding 72 hours for the purpose of enabling him to be examined by a medical practitioner and to be interviewed by a mental welfare officer and of making any necessary arrangements for his treatment or care".
what happened in this case was that police officers went, on 20 June 1973, to a place adjoining, a flat as which the Applicant resides and there, purporting to act under the powers of sec.136, took her away to a police station and, afterwards, to a mental hospital. She wanted to due the commissioner of Police for false imprisonment. Before she could do so, sec.141 of the Mental Health Act had to be complied with. That section provides, so for as material, by subsec.1:
"No person shall be liable, whether on the ground of want of jurisdiction or on any other ground, to any civil or criminal proceedings to which he would have been liable apart from this section in respect of any act purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act…unless the act was done in bad faith or without reasonable care";
and, by subsec.2
"No civil or criminal proceedings shall be brought against any person in any court in respect of any such act without the leave of the High Court, and the High Court shall not five leave under this section unless satisfied that is substantial ground for the contention that the person to he proceeded against has acted in bad faith or without reasonable care".
The Applicant made her application and she swore an affidavit in which she said that she was a secretary in a firm of accountants, born in Jamaica, had been living in this countrysince 1958 and had no history of mental illness of any kind. She said that in March 1973 she moved into a Council flat at 14 Middleton House, Campsfield Road, London, N.8; and she then described how she had had trouble with her neighbours who had flats on the same balcony. She said that leftover food, etc. had been deposited near her flat and that, as a result, she threw some earth on to her neighbour's a balcony. This kind of conduct went on, and more than once she telephoned the police, they had been courteous to her, spoke to her and to her neighbours, but said there was little that they could do about it.
Then she said that at a quarter to seven on 20 June she found a pile of excreta outside her front door, and more on the windowsill, and that she then telephoned the police. She said that after a short time four or five policemen arrived, she saw them approaching, she waited at her door, she was wearing a dressing-gown and nightdress, and she said:
"As they reached my door one saw the filth and said in a rude tone of voice, "This is our country'. I asked team to come inside, but instead without speaking to me they knocked on my neighbours' doors and spoke for a time to my neighbours, I remained silent by my door. I didn't hear the conversation, except that once I heard an officer say loudly that they would arrest the whole lot of us if they had to come round again. Then one of them told me to get dressed. I asked where he was taking me. He said he wanted to talk to me. I invited him to talk here as I was alone with my daughter. He said No. I could talk at the police station. He made it plain that I would be taken to the. Police station whether I wanted to or not. I would emphasise that at no time was I given an opportunity to tell the police why I had called them. Also that I was in no way hysterical or excited. I had stayed throughout by ay front door".
Then she said that she got dressed and was taken in a police car to the station, and she described conversations on the way in which. she said that the officers had spoken to her in a joking and offensive manner. She said that she was token first to the police station, and then to Friern Barnet Hospital, whereshe spent some hours in a ward with mental patients, she was examined by doctors and they decided that she could go home.
It is right to say that there is no evidence from any medical person to indicate that she was at any time suffering from any mental disorder.
There were also before the Judge affidavits of a number of police officers. The first was Police Constable Ellis, who said that he was on duty at the Hornsey Police Station in the early morning of 20 June, and that he received a telephone call from Mrs. Carter. That, so far, is in accordance with her own evidence: she made a telephone call to the police station. The officer says that he made a note of the call, and it was to this effect, that the caller had said: "I found dirt on my doorstep. I have plastered shit on the next door window. I have not smarted shouting yet".
The next affidavit is from Police Constable. Turnham, who was one of the officers who went to the block of flats. He said that he went there with P.C. wiles and saw the Applicant standing on the balcony between the windows of two of the flats. He said: "I saw her throw something in the direction of No.13 and then go back into flat No. 14. P.C. wiles and I went up the communal staircase and along the communal balcony which leads to No. 14".
He describes the flats on that balcony. He says saw some rubbish lying on the balcony. He continued:
"As we approached the doorway to No.14 Mrs. Carter came out of the doorway on to the balcony. I noticed that she appeared to have excreta on her hands. She started shouting and screaming and was highly excited. I could not understand what she was shouting but she gave me the impression that she was mentally unstable".
He then goes on in his affidavit to describe further conversations with her, refers again to her shouting and screaming, says she was taken to the police station where she was still continuing to shout and scream. He denies the offensive conversations whichthe Applicant has referred to in her affidavit.
Similar evidence is contained in an affidavit of Police Constable Wiles. The only material difference is that in relation to the police station this officer did not say that the applicant was shouting and screaming there but said she
"appeared to be talking to herself and every now and then she would suddenly stand up and then sit down again".
But he, like P.C. Turnham, said that he formed the opinion at the block of flats that the woman was seriously mentally disturbed, and he said he considered she needed to be removed to a place of safety.
Then the final affidavit of police evidence is that of Inspector Wootton, and he describes the woman being brought by the constables to the police station at about 7 o'clock on the morning in question, and he like Turnham, says that there "She was shorting end screaming and waving her arms about. She was hysterical and in my opinion was at that time mentally ill and in immediate need of care".
That was the evidence before the learned judge. It was contended before him, as it has been contended before us, that the Applicant had established that there was substantial ground for the contention that the person to be proceeded against had acted in bad faith or without reasonable care. The person to be proceeded against here was, of course, the Commissioner of Police, but what needed to be shown under sec. 141 was that there was substantial ground for the contention that the officers who had taken the action of taking her to the police station had acted in bad faith or without reasonable care. It was submitted, both before the learned judge and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Winch v Jones
-
David Routley (Appellant Plaintiff) v Worthing Health Authority (1st Defendant) Brian Hunt Vawdrey (Sued as Dr. B. H. Vawdrey) (2nd Defendant) John Herbert Lewis (Sued as Dr. J. H. Lewis) (3rd Defendant) West Sussex County Council (4th Defendant) Alan John Plaster (Sued as A. Plaster) (5th Defendant) Chichester Health Authority (6th Defendant)
...ought leave to be given. ( Buxton v. Jayne (1960) 1 W.L.R. 783 per Devlin L.J. 793; Carter v. Commissioner ofPolice for the Metropolis (1975) 1 W.L.R. 507per Cairns L.J. 513 and Lawton L.J. 514). 16 (2) It is not enough for the plaintiff to show that the order was made without jurisdiction;......
-
Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General and others
...The AG disagreed with Mr Mah’s contention. Emphasis was placed on the decision of Carter v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1975] 1 WLR 507 (“Carter”). Carter was a case concerning s 141 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (c 72) (UK) (“Mental Health Act 1959”). In introducing the predec......
-
陳碩謙 對 醫院管理局
...March 2011. The judgment was in Chinese. Kwan JA followed the approach of the English Court of Appeal in Carter v Commissioner of Police [1975] 1 WLR 507 at pp.512 to 513 and p.514. Her Ladyship further observed that this is a higher threshold than the one laid down in Winch v Jones, supra ......