Civil ‘Relitigation’ of a Criminal Conviction
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2012.76.5.791 |
| Published date | 01 October 2012 |
| Date | 01 October 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
is not an area where laws do not apply, nor should it be. Whilst it is easy
to say something in poor taste online, without seeing or appreciating the
emotional consequences of an action, it is no defence to say that ‘it was
only twitter’, etc. Laws apply, and nothing in the present case detracts
from the point that a person who undertakes grossly offensive, threat-
ening, indecent, obscene or menacing communications is liable where
the appropriate mens rea can be shown, including the fact that a person
realises his actions could cause someone to become fearful, distressed or
apprehensive.
Alisdair A. Gillespie
Civil ‘Relitigation’ of a Criminal Conviction
CXX v DXX [2012] EWHC 1535 (QB)
Keywords
Criminal conviction; Civil procedure; Summary judgment;
Challenge; Abuse of process
The claimant and defendant had been briefly in a sexual relationship
which led to the claimant becoming pregnant. The defendant, a medical
doctor, sought to procure a miscarriage by seeking to provide the claim-
ant with drugs that would induce a miscarriage. The defendant had been
tried in the Crown Court for two counts of attempting to administer
poison with intent to procure a miscarriage (Offences Against the Person
Act 1861, s. 58) and was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprison-
ment. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against conviction.
The claimant sought to rely upon the convictions when pursuing an
action for civil damages for psychiatric injury and consequential loss and
damage. The defendant sought to argue that the convictions were wrong
and that the claimant’s evidence in the criminal proceedings was false.
He sought to bring a cross-claim for malicious prosecution.
A master of the High Court struck out, as an abuse of process, those
parts of the defence that related to the criminal convictions (Civil
Procedure Rules, r. 3.4) and issued summary judgment. The defendant
sought leave to appeal against summary judgment, arguing that because
he had petitioned the Criminal Cases Review Commission he should be
allowed to adduce evidence to show that the claimant had lied during
the criminal proceedings and the convictions were unsafe.
HELD, REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL, s. 11 of the Civil Evidence Act
1968 provides that a criminal conviction is prima facie ...
To continue reading
Request your trial