Graham Mouncher and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Wyn Williams |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2YM19995 & Others |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 14 June 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1367 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CARDIFF DISTRICT REGISTRY
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Wyn Williams
Case No: 2YM19995 & Others
Mr Anthony Metzer QC, Mr Nick James&Ms Leah Pollard (instructed by Slater & Gordon Solicitors) for Claimant 1
Mr Anthony Metzer QC, Mr Nick James, &Ms Leah Pollard (instructed by CJCHC Solicitors) for Claimants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8
Mr Stephen Simblet & Ms Una Morris (instructed by Goldstones Solicitors) for Claimants 9 and 10
Mr Lelie Thomas QC & Mr Nick Scott (instructed by Goldstones Solicitors) for Claimants 11 and 12
Mr Stephen Cragg QC (instructed by Slater & Gordon Solicitors) for Claimant 13
Mr Nicholas Bowen QC (instructed by Confreys Solicitors) for Claimant 14
Mr Stephen Cragg QC (instructed by Quality Solicitors) for Claimant 15
Mr Jeremy Johnson QC, Mr Alan Payne, Ms Beatrice Collier & Ms Cicely Hayward (instructed by Richard Leighton Hill, Head of special Legal Casework, South Wales Police) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 12 October 2015 – 17 December 2015
Mr Justice Wyn Williams:
Introduction
Just before 9pm on Sunday 14 February 1988, a young woman called Leanne Vilday (LV) walked into the Butetown police station in Cardiff and told the officers present that she was concerned for the safety of her friend Lynette White. She asked the officers to go with her to a flat which she had been renting at 7 James Street which was situated a short distance away. Two police officers agreed to accompany her to the flat. Once inside, the two officers went into the bedroom where they discovered the mutilated body of Lynette (as I shall call her in the remainder of this judgment). It was obvious to the officers that Lynette had been subjected to a brutal and sustained attack with a knife or knives.
That same night South Wales Police (SWP) launched an extensive investigation. All the Claimants in these proceedings were then serving police officers of SWP and they all participated to a greater or lesser extent in the investigation as it unfolded.
On 7 December 1988 six men were arrested and detained; they were Stephen Miller (SM), Anthony Miller (AM), Ronald Actie (RA), Yusef Abdullahi (YA), Martin Tucker (MT) and Rashid Omar (RO). On 9 December two more men, Anthony (Tony) Paris (TP) and John Actie (JA) were arrested and detained. All these men were interviewed under caution at length.
In due course, AM, MT and RO were released without charge. However, on 11 December 1988 the other five men were charged with Lynette's murder. In the remainder of this judgment, when it is appropriate to do so, these five men are referred to collectively as "the original defendants".
In October 1989 their trial began at the Swansea Crown Court. Just before he was due to sum up, the trial judge, McNeill J, died suddenly. A second trial took place between April 1990 and November 1990; the trial judge was Leonard J. After a long period of deliberation the jury convicted SM, TP and YA of murder and acquitted JA and RA. The three convicted defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Their convictions were quashed in December 1992.
In 1999 a decision was made by the then Chief Constable of SWP to commission an independent review of the investigation which had led to the prosecution of the original defendants. The review commenced in June 1999 and was carried out by two experienced retired senior police officers unconnected with SWP, namely William Hacking and John Thornley. They reported their findings in May 2000. Traditionally, this investigation has been referred to as LW1 but in this judgment I will refer to the investigation as the "Hacking and Thornley Review" and the report which followed it as the "Hacking and Thornley Report". On 23 August 2000, SWP formed an inquiry team to reinvestigate the murder of Lynette. The reinvestigation was given the name "Operation Mistral". Subsequently this investigation also became known as LW2 although I shall refer to it as Operation Mistral.
As a consequence of Operation Mistral a man called Jeffery Gafoor (JG) was charged with Lynette's murder. On 4 July 2003, before Royce J sitting in the Crown Court at Cardiff, JG pleaded guilty as charged.
Very shortly after JG's plea, Sir Anthony Burden, then Chief Constable of SWP, decided that there should be an investigation into the events which had led to the charging and prosecution of the original defendants. Initially, the terms of reference of the investigation were:
"To identify and investigate any criminal or disciplinary offences arising from the Original Investigation."
This investigation became known as LW3. The investigation began, in earnest, within days of JG's conviction.
On various dates in 2005 all the Claimants, except Mr Hicks, were arrested on suspicion that they had committed the offences of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, misconduct in public office and false imprisonment during the course of carrying out their duties in the original investigation. The Claimant, Mr Hicks, was arrested on suspicion of having committed those offences on 26 June 2007. For ease of reference, hereinafter, I will refer to the original investigation as LW1. I hope this will not cause confusion to those who are used to describing the "Hacking and Thornley Review" as LW1.
On 2 March 2009 a prosecution was launched against all the Claimants save for Mrs Coliandris and Mr Morgan. All the prosecuted Claimants were jointly charged with the offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. Mr Mouncher was also charged with offences of perjury. The following year a decision was taken not to continue with the prosecution against Mrs O'Brien on account of her ill-health.
On 4 July 2011 a trial began before Sweeney J and a jury; the defendants in that trial were the Claimants Messrs Mouncher, Powell, Jennings, Stephen, Seaford, Greenwood, Daniels and Page together with 2 other persons, Violet Perriam and Ian Massey, who had been witnesses in the trials of the original defendants. On 1 December 2011 leading counsel for the prosecution informed the trial judge that no further evidence was to be offered against those persons and verdicts of not guilty were duly recorded. On 8 December 2011 the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew the charges it had laid against Messrs Gillard, Pugh, Murray and Hicks.
In these proceedings the Claimants allege the following:-
(a) Claimants 1 to 8, inclusive, allege that officers under the control of the Defendant who participated in LW3 committed against them the torts of false imprisonment and misfeasance in public office;
(b) Claimants 9, 10, 11 and 12 also allege that they were the victims of those torts but allege, additionally, that they were victims of the tort of malicious prosecution;
(c) Claimant 13 alleges that he was the victim of misfeasance in public office and false imprisonment;
(d) Claimants 14 and 15 allege they were victims of false imprisonment and, additionally, they pursue claims under the Human Rights Act 1998.
All Claimants claim compensatory, exemplary and aggravated damages but my task is to adjudicate upon the issue of liability. To the extent that liability and causation overlap it will be necessary to consider both issues together.
I stress at the outset of this judgment that my task is to reach conclusions about whether the Claimants have been the victims of the wrongs they allege as formulated and particularised in their pleadings. I accept, of course, that in order to make a judgment about whether the Claimants were the victims of the torts they allege it will be necessary to relate in some detail the evidence adduced before me relating to LW1 and Operation Mistral. I also accept that to a limited extent it will be necessary for me to reach conclusions about some of the events which are said to have occurred during the course of those investigations. However, I cannot emphasise too strongly that it is not my task to adjudicate upon the guilt or innocence of the Claimants in respect of the offences for which they were all arrested or upon the guilt or innocence of Claimants 1 to 13 in relation to the offences with which they were charged and in respect of which they were prosecuted. It is the conduct of the police officers who were engaged in investigating the Claimants as part of LW3 which is, primarily, under the microscope in these proceedings. Stripped to its essentials, I have to make a number of judgments about the thought processes, decisions, acts and omissions of those officers as LW3 ran its course.
I heard oral evidence over many weeks. Each of the Claimants gave evidence before me (apart from Mrs O'Brien) as did many of the principal decision makers involved in LW3. I also heard evidence from a number of police officers who had discrete roles within LW3. As I hope will be obvious I have taken full and proper account of the written and oral evidence given by these persons. However, in my judgment, by far the most important source of evidence available to me upon which to reach a judgment about the acts and/or omissions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David John Whitehouse Against Philip Gormley Qpm And Others
...was also made of Louden v Chief Constable of Police Scotland 2014 SLT (Sh Ct) 97 and Mouncher v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB) paragraph 414. [125] As for the similar propositions in respect of the decisions to arrest, it is recognised that there is no statutory......
-
Jonathan Rees v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...documents when it helps them, and not when it does not. That submission was based on the fact that, in the similar case of Mouncher v Chief Constable of South Wales [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB), privilege in this same class of documents was waived. 117 It seems to me that, in circumstances where t......
-
ST v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police
...and fairly referred me to the decision of Mr Justice Wyn Williams in Mouncher and others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB). One argument advanced was that: “All the Claimants complain about the fact that they were arrested at or about 6.30 a.m. in the mornin......
-
Alexis Karalis v The Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary
...in the case of Parker, Copeland was followed at first instance by Wyn Williams J in Mouncher v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB) at [429–434], doubting Alford insofar as it contradicted 71 In Copeland, the ‘briefing’ party was PC Bains, a police officer, who was a......