Cash and Brown v Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 2008 |
| Date | 05 February 2008 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
High Court, Chancery Division, HC06CO1869
David Donaldson QC
K Singh QC (instructed by Roche &Co) for C and B; F Barton (instructed by the Force Solicitor) for the Chief Constable
Whether a horse had been unlawfully seized and retained by police and, if so, the appropriate award of damages.
C ran a horse breeding business in Ireland. He bought Romeo, a palomino gypsy cob stallion, to cover his own breeding mares. In 2006 11 foals sired by Romeo were born; they had an average value of about €16,000. B, who ran a horse business in Blackpool, agreed to stable Romeo for 6 weeks and seek to obtain mares from the surrounding area for
him to serve during that period, after which he would return to Ireland. The stud fees were to be £500 per mare, of which B would keep £100. Romeo was brought over to England by C on 18 March 2006, and was left with B.
On 20 April 2006 B surrendered to police bail in relation to offences including money laundering. The police executed a search warrant (authorising a search for cash) at B's premises, and noted Romeo. B was asked who was the owner of the horse, and he gave a name of a person whom the police soon discovered was not the true owner, which led them to suspect Romeo was stolen. Police attended at B's premises the following morning to remove Romeo, though without a search warrant; they had alerted the press, who attended. When B's solicitor, who was present, objected that the police had come on the land without a warrant, the police moved their horsebox to the road and announced that they would obtain a warrant. There was a dispute as to whether they did so immediately or after first claiming that the warrant from the previous day was applicable. In the event an agreement was drawn up and signed on behalf of B and the police to the effect that B agreed to permit Romeo to be removed and the police agreed that the police horsebox had unlawfully entered B's premises. Romeo was taken away and was held by the police.
On 3 May 2006 C forwarded to the police evidence of ownership, including a photograph, a sample of hair (for DNA sampling) and evidence of the ferry reservation for the transit of Romeo from Dublin to Holyhead. That documentation referred to the website maintained by C. The substantial material posted on that site indicated that C ran a substantial business, breeding large numbers of gypsy cob horses. On 11 May 2006 C's solicitor made and served a witness statement exhibiting a letter from a vet corroborating the claim that Romeo belonged to C. From that point the police accepted that C was indeed the owner of a palomino stallion, but were suspicious as to whether C was the owner of Romeo. The officer considered that there were discrepancies between the photographs of the horses and that the hair sample might have been taken from B's premises (so would not establish C's ownership). C purchased an alternative stallion for €20,000. Three foals from that stallion were sold in 2007 for a total of about £15,000.
In the event, the police retained Romeo until 17 August 2006 when he was returned to B. The decision to release the horse in August was motivated by the substantial cost of maintaining the horse being borne by the police. When Romeo was returned he had suffered from mites on his legs, an infestation to which the gypsy cob is particularly susceptible, and which had caused him to rub bald patches on his lower legs. There was also a trace of small sarcomas on the horse's sheath and prepuce, and possibly in his nose. His mane had been cut to some extent, the precise extent of which was in dispute. On 16 February 2007 Romeo was sold for €150,000 to an American purchaser. C contended that without the defects he could have sold the horse for €200,000.
B sought damages (including aggravated damages) for trespass. C sought damages for the detention of Romeo after 18 May 2006 (it being agreed that the initial seizure, and retention for a few weeks had been lawful). He sought damages for loss of stud fees, the cost of buying another stallion, lost sales of foals, loss in value of Romeo and general damages.
Nature of the action
1. This case concerns a horse called Romeo. More precisely, his formal name is Clononeen Mull of Kintyre, but his handsome appearance and stud potential led his owners to add or substitute in practice the sobriquet Romeo. He is a gypsy cob, a breed of small horse developed in Ireland from the tinker cobs used traditionally by travellers. In recent years interest in the gypsy cob as a show horse has greatly increased with important demand coming from the United States. Romeo is a particularly striking and attractive example of the breed because of his palomino colour, which can only be achieved where both stallion and mare possess the comparatively unusual cream gene.
2. Romeo was bought by the First Claimant and his sister Deirdre in late 2004, when he was 3 years old. Mr Cash and his sister, both of whom are still in their twenties, inherited from their father in 2003 a horse-breeding business then carried on at Clononeen Farm, Durrow, County Laois in the middle of Ireland (though recently relocated to Surrey at the end of 2006). At the time of the events with which this case is concerned in April 2006, there were about 125 horses at Clononeen. An important part of the business, and well to the fore in its website, was the breeding of gypsy cobs, much of it with an eye to the US export market.
3. Part of the purpose in buying Romeo was to cover Clononeen Farm's own breeding mares, and he was used for that purpose in 2005. But the Cashes also hoped to earn income at stud from Romeo, for which fees in the region of £500 could be expected. Towards this end, as I understand it, he was shown at the Smithfield horse fair in Dublin in early 2006, an event regarded as an important showcase by breeders of gypsy cobs, including those in mainland Britain, where he excited considerable interest.
4. The Second Claimant, Mr Brown, is a settled traveller who lives in Blackpool in a house called Strathallan with a paddock attached. Though he works as a builder, he has also an interest in horses, and had in 2006 about 5 at Strathallan, some owned by him and others stabled for third parties. He also attended and organised horse fairs in the North West of England. It was at one of those that he was shown by an acquaintance a video taken of Romeo at the Smithfield fair shortly before. He was immediately put in touch with Mr Cash by telephone and discussed the possibility of Romeo coming to Blackpool for a short period for stud purposes. It was agreed that he would be stabled for 6 weeks with Mr Brown, who would seek to obtain mares from the surrounding area for him to serve during that period, after which he would return to Ireland. The stud fees were to be £500 per mare, of which Mr Brown would keep £100. Romeo was brought over to England in a horse-box by Mr Cash on 18 March 2006, and left with Mr Brown at Strathallan. Unfortunately, the weather that spring was unusually cold and inclement, so that mares came into season very late, and by the time of the events with which this action is concerned Romeo had not performed at stud in Blackpool nor had Mr Brown received any bookings for that purpose.
5. Relations between Mr Brown and the Blackpool police were regrettably poor. He was suspected by them of money-laundering, theft, and handling stolen goods. It was against this background that on 20 April 2006 Mr Brown surrendered to police bail and was interviewed in Blackpool police station by the CID, attended by his solicitor, Mr Paul Roche, who had come from London for that purpose. The police told them that they had obtained a warrant to search Strathallan for cash, and Mr Roche accompanied an officer that afternoon to witness the execution of that warrant. The officer noted the presence of a horse, namely Romeo, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial