Michael Alford v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Richards,Lord Justice Rimer |
| Judgment Date | 24 February 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 100 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2008/1753 & B3/2008/1753(A) |
| Date | 24 February 2009 |
[2009] EWCA Civ 100
The President of the Queen's Bench Division
Lord Justice Richards and
Lord Justice Rimer
Case No: B3/2008/1753 & B3/2008/1753(A)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CAMBRIDGE COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge O'Brien)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Stephen Cragg (instructed by Messrs Russell Jones & Walker) for the Appellant
Richard Perks (instructed by Messrs Weightmans LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 4 February 2009
Lord Justice Richards :
In December 2004 the appellant, a police constable serving with the Lincolnshire Police, was the driver of a police car involved in a police pursuit which ended when the pursued vehicle crashed, killing a passenger in the vehicle. Most of the pursuit took place in Lincolnshire but the accident happened just over the county border in Cambridgeshire. An investigation carried out by the Cambridgeshire Police under the management of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“the IPCC”) led to the appellant being arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving and in due course being charged with that offence, but the prosecution was subsequently discontinued. The appellant then brought a claim against the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. That claim was dismissed by His Honour Judge O'Brien following a four-day trial.
This appeal is brought against the dismissal of the claim. The main issues in the appeal are whether the judge was wrong to find (1) that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the appellant had committed the offence, and (2) that the prosecution was brought with reasonable and probable cause. They involve mainly factual questions, but there is also a point under (1) about the position in law if, although the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to suspect, the officer who briefed him has failed to provide him with relevant information that would undermine those grounds. In the event that the judge's finding on (2) is reversed, there is a further issue, raised by a respondent's notice, as to the judge's finding on the question whether the prosecution was brought with improper motive.
The facts
At about mid-day on 23 December 2004 the appellant and his passenger, PC McCulley, were on duty in a marked police car. They saw a white Cavalier car driven, as was later found, by Ambrose Farrell and in which Gareth Moore was travelling as a passenger. The appellant flashed his lights to indicate to Mr Farrell that he wanted him to stop. Mr Farrell, however, drove off at speed and a pursuit ensued. The pursuing officers did not know whether the occupants of the Cavalier had committed any criminal offence, though it seems that the vehicle was suspected of having been involved in an earlier incident, and in the course of the pursuit the officers were informed that the vehicle had not been taxed.
The pursuit, which lasted just over eleven minutes, was filmed on video by a camera in the police car, and there was also an audio recording of exchanges between the officers and their central control. The pursuit took place in part through built-up areas and in part on open rural roads, at speeds that reached a maximum of 113 mph. There was a considerable amount of traffic on the road, in both directions, and the pursuit involved both cars in numerous overtaking manoeuvres. On occasions the police car got very close to the Cavalier, whilst at other times the distance between them was greater and there were also some vehicles between them. The pursuit ended when Mr Farrell lost control of the Cavalier and it crashed off the road, killing Mr Moore. At that point the police car was several hundred yards behind, with other vehicles between them.
Mr Farrell was arrested and was subsequently charged. In due course he pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was sentenced to five and half years' imprisonment.
Because of the involvement of police officers, the incident was referred to the IPCC by the Lincolnshire Police. It was initially expected that the same force would conduct the investigation under the supervision of the IPCC. It therefore commissioned one of its traffic experts, Police Constable Parker, to prepare a report on the incident.
On 20 January 2005, however, the IPCC decided that it should manage rather than supervise the investigation, so as to exercise an increased level of control over it, and that the investigation should be conducted by the Cambridgeshire Police as an independent force. The officer put in charge of the investigation was Detective Superintendent Hankins; his number two in the team was Detective Chief Inspector Joyce; and his number three was Inspector Etherington.
The Cambridgeshire Police commissioned a report from a traffic expert in their own force, Police Constable Price.
On 3 February 2005, before a report was received from PC Price, the senior officers in the investigation decided that in due course, at the appropriate moment, the appellant would be arrested and interviewed. This was supported by the IPCC, though there was a difference of view as to the amount of notice the appellant should be given. A meeting for the purposes of the arrest and interview was planned for 1 March but was postponed to 16 March at the request of the appellant's solicitor.
On 2 March a report was received from PC Price. It was critical of the appellant. It identified a number of occasions during the pursuit when, in PC Price's opinion, the police car got too close to the Cavalier, leaving insufficient stopping distance and also placing undue pressure on the driver of the Cavalier (the concern being that this may result in increased speeds and greater risk to the safety of the public). The pursuit also involved the police car committing an offence by crossing solid double white lines while overtaking. Further, it was PC Price's belief that, in adherence to the relevant ACPO guidelines, the pursuit should have been discontinued after about seven minutes because there were no pursuit resolution tactics readily available, the continuance of the pursuit could not be justified in relation to the offences committed or suspected to have been committed, and the pursuit had become too dangerous to continue.
On 10 March PC Parker produced the report that had been commissioned from him by the Lincolnshire Police. It was much less critical of the appellant, concluding in relation to him:
“Constable Alford's standard of driving on the whole was of a satisfactory standard and I do not believe he committed any Road Traffic Offences in relation to his manner of driving. Overtakes taken by him were, on the whole, of a good standard and he claimed all exemptions with regard to Road Traffic legislation in line with his training. He did however on two definite occasions get very close to the subject vehicle … and this in an ideal situation should not [have] happened as the subject could have felt pressurised.”
The Lincolnshire Police sent the Parker report, in undated and unsigned form, by email to DCI Joyce on 10 March and he forwarded it to Inspector Etherington on 11 March. The report was discussed by those two officers and there was some evidence that it was discussed at case meetings, but subject to that it seems to have been put on one side. The judge found that it did not come to the attention of DS Hankins who was in overall charge of the investigation. It was not taken into account in the subsequent decisions to arrest and prosecute the appellant. The reasons for this troubling feature of the case are not fully explored in the judge's judgment. He commented that the police officers appeared to attach more significance than a court would to the fact that the report was undated and unsigned. It appears, however, that the provenance of the report may have been the most important consideration. The report had been commissioned by the Lincolnshire Police, the appellant's own force, rather than by the Cambridgeshire Police, the investigating force. Inspector Etherington described it as “unsolicited”, and there is some evidence that, because it came from the appellant's own force, it was not considered to be objective enough. In any event, whatever the reasons why the report played so little part in their thinking, the judge was satisfied that neither Inspector Etherington nor any other officer deliberately withheld it from the arresting officer. It was also Inspector Etherington's evidence that he could only conclude that it was a genuine oversight that the report was not included in the later disclosure to the Crown Prosecution Service.
On 16 March the appellant's arrest took place. The arresting officer was Sergeant Johnson. I shall examine later the basis upon which he made the arrest. Following the arrest there were a number of interviews under caution, but on legal advice attributable to dissatisfaction with the extent of disclosure the appellant made no comment in response to questions on the substance of the case. The total period for which he was detained before being granted bail was six and a half hours.
On 21 March the case file, completed by Inspector Etherington, was forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service. It included the Price report but it did not include the Parker report and it made no reference to that report. It included the witness statements and a summary of those statements, but the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michael Ciaran Parker v The Chief Constable of Essex Police
...to others but not provided to the arresting officer, would not do so. This risk was addressed by the Court of Appeal in Alford v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police [2009] EWCA Civ 100. The Court held that the matters known to the arresting officer (who was not the Senior Investigating......
-
Graham Mouncher and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police
...of the Defendant it is argued that the answer to this question is to be found in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Alford v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire [2009] EWCA Civ. 100. Richards LJ, with whom Ryder LJ and the President of the Queen's Bench Division agreed, said at paragraph ......
-
Gallagher's (Michael) Application for Judicial Review and in the matter of a decision by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made on 12th September 2013
...Wales [1991] 6 CL 80. A constable may rely on the briefing of another police officer: see Alford v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire [2009] EWCA Civ 100 or on an entry in the police national computer: see Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police [2001] EWCA Civ 39. There is no duty o......
-
Kate McCann v Crown Prosecution Service
...on they can properly form the basis of a reasonable suspicion in the constable's own mind. This approach was followed in Alford v Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire [2009] EWCA Civ 100 where this court held that the arresting officer could rely on a briefing from another police officer as a ......
-
Does “Prosecution” in the Law of Malicious Prosecution Extend to Malicious Civil Proceedings? A Commonwealth Update (part 1)
...Moulton v Chief Constab le of the West Midlands 2 010 EWCA Civ 524 paras 26 -27; Alford v Chief Constable of Cam bridgeshire Police 2009 EWCA Civ 100 paras 48 a nd 153; Howarth v Gwent Constabulary 2011 EWHC 2836 (QB) paras 130-131; Qema v News Group Newspapers Ltd 2012 EWHC 1146 (QB) para ......