Friel v Chief Constable of Strathclyde
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 12 August 1980 |
| Date | 12 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE.
Lord Maxwell.
Administration of justice—Courts of law—Recovery of documents—Public interest—Documents in hands of public authority—Power of court to order production—Whether public interest of risk to law enforcement outweighed by possibility that person could not sue an informer for defamation—Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (cap. 44), sec. 47—Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 (cap. 59), sec. 1 (1) and (4)1.
Crown—Rights and immunities—Commission and diligence—Recovery of documents—Public interest—Documents in the hands of a public authority—Power of court to order production—Whether a public interest of risk to law enforcement outweighed by possibility that person could not sue an informer for defamation—Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (cap. 44), sec. 47—Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 (cap. 59), sec. 1 (1) and (4)1.
Process—Commission and diligence—Recovery of documents—Order under Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972—Sufficiency of averments—Meaning of "proceedings which are likely to be brought"—Documents in the hands of a public authority—Documents in hands of the police relating, to information by informer—Petitioner seeking recovery to identify prospective defender in action of defamation—Objection of Lord Advocate in public interest—Possibility of suing informer a matter of public interest which outweighed the public interest of risk to law enforcement—Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (cap. 44), sec. 47—Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 (cap. 59), sec. 1 (1) and (4)1.
Police officers acting on information from an informer obtained a search warrant and searched the property of the petitioner in connection with the theft of a number of cases of whisky. The search was fruitless. The petitioner, who did not drink alcohol, was a respected local businessman. He believed that the information on which the police acted was given to them falsely and maliciously and without probable cause in order to damage his business standing and reputation. He wished to raise an action of damages against the informer, whose identity was unknown to him.
The petitioner therefore sought an order under sec. 1 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 for the recovery of documents in the possession of the police force revealing the name of the informer. It was contended for the Chief Constable that there were insufficient averments to justify making an order. For the Lord Advocate it was contended that it would be injurious to the public interest to disclose the documents.
Held (1) that an informer was not liable for a false accusation unless he was acting both from malice and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew Somerville+samuel Ralston+ricardo Blanco+william Cairns+david Henderson V. The Scottish Ministers For Judicial Review
...Henderson v McGowan 1916 SC 821; Rogers v Orr 1939 SC 492; Glasgow Corporation v Central Land Board; Friel v Chief Constable of Strathclyde 1981 SC 1; and AB v Glasgow and West of Scotland Blood Transfusion Service 1993 SLT 36. Under reference to the various English authorities relied on by......
-
Dumfries And Galloway Council V. Kevin Dunion, Scottish Information Commissioner
...attempt to include in a section 1 order a requirement that the respondent disclose information. In Friel v Chief Constable of Strathclyde 1981 SC 1 the petitioner applied under section 1 for an order for the recovery of documents containing information as to the identity of a potential defe......
-
Pearson v Educational Institute of Scotland
...Colquhoun, Petr 1990 SLT 43 Dominion Technology Ltd v. Gardner Cryogenics Ltd (No 1) 1993 SLT 828 Friel v. Chief Constable of StrathclydeSC 1981 SC 1 Goodwin v. UKHRC (1996) 22 EHRR 123 James v. BairdENR 1916 SC 510 Parks v. Tayside RC 1989 SLT 345 Suzor v. McLachlanENR 1914 SC 306 Watson v......
-
McLeod (Alistair) v HM Advocate (No.2)
...18 EHRR 54 Downie v HM AdvocateSC 1952 JC 37 Edwards v United Kingdom (A/247–B) [1992] 15 EHRR 417 Friel v Chief Constable of StrathclydeSC 1981 SC 1 Hemming v HM AdvocateSC 1997 JC 140 Higgins v HM AdvocateSC 1997 JC 212 McFadyen v AnnanSC 1992 JC 53 McLeod v HM Advocate 1998 SLT 60 R v Bl......
-
Juridical Acts in the Draft Common Frame of Reference – A Model for Scotland?
...reasonable third party.9595Gloag & Henderson, Law of Scotland (n 51) para 39.93; Meston (n 94) at para 765; Jamieson's Executors and Fyvie 1981 SC 1; Rhodes v Peterson 1971 SC 56; Cameron's Trustees v Mackenzie 1915 SC 313; Munro v Coutts (1813) 1 Dow Chapter 7 on grounds of invalidity Arti......
-
ESTOPPEL
...in Attorney General of Bendel State v. Attorney General of the Federation & Ors. Suit No. S.C. 17/1981; (1981) 12 N.S.C.C. 314 at 362 (1981) S.C. 1 at 106 (30) "Estoppel has been defined as a liability whereby a party is precluded from alleging or proving in legal proceedings that a fac......