Elliott v Staffordshire Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Judge Wood QC |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3165 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLJ/15/0514 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 14 October 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 3165 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
His Honour Judge Graham Wood QC
Case No: TLJ/15/0514
Mr Elliott litigant in person
Mr Cohen (instructed by Plexus Law) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Wednesday, 14 October 2015
(11.00 am)
Introduction
This trial has been concerned with an action brought by Mr Elliott against the Staffordshire Police in which he alleges defamatory statements were made by one of their police officers during the course of a child protection conference on 25 th April 2013.
Specifically, it is alleged that the officer in question, DC Tim Bailey, stated to those present at the conference that the Claimant, Mr Elliott, had previously been the subject of a conviction or caution for domestic violence in the context of a meeting which had been convened to consider whether or not a child of the relationship between the Claimant and his then partner, Charlotte Kelly, should be the subject of child protection steps because of a background of possible domestic violence between her parents. This, says Mr Elliott, was particularly damaging for him and had a significant and subsequent highly detrimental effect on all aspects of his life.
There are further allegations made against DC Bailey as to the manner in which he passed comment on the Claimant's potential to commit domestic violence in the presence of others who heard such allegedly slanderous comments.
Thus, the issues to be determined within this trial fall into two categories. First, the words used by the officer and, second, whether such reported statement by the officer as is found by this court is actionable in law as defamation.
The Claimant, Mr Elliott, is a litigant in person who has demonstrated throughout the course of these proceedings the intensity of his grievance, that he has been the victim of wrong by those in authority, and it has not always been easy in this trial or, apparently, at the case management stage, to ensure that he has remained focused on the narrow issues which fall to be decided. In fact, so zealous has he been in pursuit of what he perceives is the truth, that the Claimant has issued numerous groundless and pointless applications. More recently, these have been bizarre and, on their face, offensive, obscene and possibly homophobic.
This has resulted in an Extended Civil Restraint Order imposed by Simler J. The civil restraint order did not prevent Mr Elliott from finalising his civil action for defamation and attending this trial. Notwithstanding the restraint, Mr Elliott has continued to make applications, even in the face of this court, including attempts to vary or set aside the civil restraint order. Needless to say, I have declined to deal with any of these, not only because they should be directed to Cranston J in the first instance but also because they are all wholly lacking in substance. While Mr Elliott's approach to the court process and the way in which he has attempted to involve numerous parties, the court staff and the judiciary in time-wasting procedures is arguably abusive, I have been prepared to regard that approach as a symptom of the passion and belief which he has, that he has been the victim of a conspiracy by those in authority. Thus, I put out of my mind those matters in dealing with the narrow issues which arise in this case.
There was, however, one particular concern at the beginning of the trial. Over the weekend, Mr Elliott was arrested by Staffordshire Police, the defendant in this case coincidentally, after allegedly sending offensive and threatening emails; he spent the weekend in custody and his mobile phone and computer were seized and retained under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. He was charged and released on bail to attend the hearing on Monday morning but at the outset of the trial, he stated that without his computer and mobile phone, he was unable to prepare for his case or to get hold of important witnesses who could support his account.
It was not entirely clear to me, when I pursued Mr Elliott, as to whether or not he was seeking an adjournment. If a formal application had been made, I would have refused it on the basis that even with an indulgence to a litigant in person, the overriding objective should still be uppermost in the court's consideration. On closer investigation, it was clear that the two witness statements that had been served in accordance with the earlier court directions did not add significantly to the case but could still be considered as hearsay evidence, with appropriate weight attached. Furthermore, it was still open to Mr Elliott, in the course of the first day, to telephone those witnesses using a public payphone; witnesses who should have been warned of the date, in any event, and to ensure their attendance. Mr Elliott accepted that the case was one which would fall to be decided largely on the papers and preferred to have his case brought to a conclusion, which is entirely understandable in the circumstances.
One other procedural matter arose in the context of his own evidence. He had not filed or served a statement in accordance with the directions and it would have been open to this court to exclude him from giving any direct testimony but his factual account was contained in a substituted pleading that has been attested to by a statement of truth. I allowed an application for relief in the face of the court, and Mr Elliott to give evidence, himself, and to be cross-examined. This was not opposed sensibly by Mr Cohen, counsel who appeared on behalf of the defendant.
Background
So much for the procedural matters, I now turn to the background and the evidence. At some stage in April 2013, Staffordshire County Council Social Services Department were alerted to a potential child protection issue involving the daughter of Mr Elliott and his partner, Charlotte Kelly, who is to be referred to (the daughter, that is) simply as D in this judgment. She was a baby who was a few months old at the time. This involvement was seemingly triggered by an accumulation of episodes of domestic violence which had been reported to the police or had come to the Social Services attention.
At this stage, I use the words domestic violence neutrally to imply a potentially violent and argumentative relationship by either partner to another and not to signify convictions in courts of law or police cautions. It is common in such circumstances that a social worker core assessment is prepared. Interested parties become involved, including the parents and grandparents, if appropriate, health visitors, social workers and the police and the question is addressed as to whether or not measures have to be put in place to prevent more serious consequences in the family courts.
Such an assessment was prepared on 18 th April 2013 in anticipation of a multi-agency child protection conference a week later, on 25 th April. It is a 17 page document, although not included in the defendant's disclosure list because it is said never to have been in their control. It was made available through the original second defendant who attended with counsel, Mr Banks, who had a watching brief. Clearly, Mr Elliott had a copy of this and was concerned about it and it has, for him, a perceived relevance and, therefore, I agreed it should be included in the trial bundle right at the very end. The assessment was very detailed and addressed wider concerns of neglect in relation to the child arising from reports by health professionals. It also made reference to what was clearly the trigger event; an incident on 9 th April 2013 when Charlotte Kelly was arrested for attacking Mr Elliott with a breadknife during the course of a violent domestic argument. This led, for her, to a caution for an offence of assault. Social Services also had information about allegations of kidnap by the maternal grandparents and the impression is given of a somewhat chaotic domestic background which had to be the subject of assessment and investigation for the protection of the child. It is important to note the report did not contain any details or criminal antecedents except the reference to Charlotte Kelly's involvement on 9 th April but when dealing with the Claimant, Mr Elliott, this observation was made on page 12 of the 17 pages.
"Upon sharing information with Stoke-on-Trent Council, it is evident that Stephen has been in a previous relationship, whereby issues of domestic violence had also been present. With respect, given Charlotte's lack of understanding domestic violence has upon the Child, D, and Steven's history, this leaves the Local Authority very concerned in respect of risk and managing the risk."
Mr Elliott fervently believes that the assessment had input from the Staffordshire Police and, in particular, DC Bailey, and I shall refer to this later when considering the evidence of both of them.
In any event, the core assessment report was made available for those present at the child protection conference and the multi-agency meeting on 25 th April 2013. This meeting appears to have been divided into three sessions. First of all, there was a general session at which the parents and grandparents were present and when everyone was given an opportunity to comment on the contents of the core assessment. The minutes of these are found on page 201 in the court bundle and they appear to have been accepted as accurate, although it is not entirely clear when...
To continue reading
Request your trial