Darker and Others v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1998 |
| Date | 24 March 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Millett, Lord Justice Auld and Lord Justice Schiemann
Police - investigation of crime - immunity from civil action
The rule of law which, save in cases of alleged abuse of process, provided for absolute immunity from civil action in respect of things said or done in the course of a judicial process, extended to conduct which could fairly be said to be part of the investigatory and preparatory process of investigating a crime or possible crime with a view to the possible prosecution of the matter investigated.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment, dismissing an appeal by the plaintiffs, David Stanley Docker, Albert Head, William Rea Lamont, Steven Rhodes, John Clark and Winslow Tyrone Parsons, against the order of
Mr Justice Kay on September 27, 1996 striking out their action for damages against the defendant, the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police, for conspiracy to injure and misfeasance in public office in connection with the preparation and alleged fabrication of evidence by police officers in unsuccessful criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs. There was no claim for malicious prosecution.
Mr Alan Newman, QC and Mr Paul Spencer for the plaintiffs; Mr Michael Austin-Smith, QC and Mr Daniel Janner for the defendant.
LORD JUSTICE AULD said that the appeal concerned the breadth of the rule of law which, save in actions for an alleged abuse of the process of the court, provided absolute immunity from civil action in respect of things said or done, even if falsely and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause, in the course of a judicial process.
In particular, the question for decision was whether the immunity extended to conduct in preparation for judicial proceedings earlier and other than the making of witness statements or proofs of evidence.
The rule of immunity was of considerable antiquity, but the starting point for modern judicial discussion of it was the statement of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Chief Baron, Court of Exchequer, in Dawkins v Lord RokebyELR ([1873] LR 8 QB 255, 264: "…no action lies against parties or witnesses for anything said or done, although falsely and maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause, in the ordinary course of any proceeding in a court of justice".
There were two public policy reasons for the rule:
First, to enable and encourage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Parmar v East Leicester Medical Practice
-
Attorney-General v Chapman Sc
...57 Because immunities conflict with other important rule of law values, they are always regarded with suspicion. In Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police 132 the House of Lords affirmed that the public policy that those who suffer wrongs should have a remedy required existing......
- Noor Azman bin Azemi v Zahida binti Mohamed Rafik
-
Lake v British Transport Police
...of this court in Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005] ICR 329, and that of the House of Lords in Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [2001] 1 AC 435, the tribunal accepted that submission: “ 16. I can think of nothing which is more likely to be seen as an attac......