Paul v Chief Constable of Humberside Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2003 |
| Date | 28 July 2003 |
| Court | County Court |
Court and Reference:Sheffield County Court, No KH202422
: HHJ Heppel QC
Appearances: S Simblet (instructed by Messrs Hickman & Rose) appeared for P; N Wilcox (instructed by Corporate Legal Services, Humberside Police) appeared for the Chief Constable
: Whether, on the facts, it was necessary to leave questions to the jury in a false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claim
: P and A were friends. They attended a function that was of special interest to the black community in Hull. A was ejected after being involved in a fight. Outside the club he appeared anxious to get into more fights. P tried to stop A getting into further trouble by punching him in the face: A fell backwards to the ground and was rendered temporarily unconscious. He was taken to hospital where his behaviour was such that the police were called. He was taken into custody and was put on the floor, handcuffed behind his back, with his trousers around his knees. He was left there for some time before an officer became concerned about whether he was breathing. Attempts were made to resuscitate him but he died.
P learned of A's death the day it happened and, after taking legal advice, attended at a police station with his solicitor. A admitted that he had been in a fight with P and he was arrested for murder. The post mortem report came through: it showed that A's 2 front teeth had been knocked out but that it was unlikely that the cause of death was from the punch. P and his solicitor were informed of this. P was then interviewed on several occasions. In the course of the first interview P was arrested for causing grievous bodily harm in substitution for the arrest for murder. P was charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861). Bail was refused by the police. He was subsequently released on bail by the Magistrates' Court subject to a condition that he reside at a bail hostel away from Hull.
The CPS indicated that they were minded to order that proceedings against P be discontinued. Officers expressed concern about this and made representations to the CPS. However, the proceedings were discontinued as the CPS considered that P could rely on self-defence to justify his actions. Subsequently, an inquest returned a verdict that A had been unlawfully killed. The officers involved were charged with manslaughter but were acquitted on the direction of the trial judge. In due course they were also acquitted of any disciplinary charges arising out of the incident.
P brought a claim for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. He contended that his arrest for murder was unlawful. A contention that the arrest for causing grievous bodily harm was unlawful was abandoned; however, he contended that there was no reasonable or probable cause to charge him with a s. 18 offence, suggesting that the police were motivated by a desire to deflect criticism away from themselves and to use P as a suitable scapegoat. He also contended that the police were guilty of misfeasance in public office in continuing to support an unjustified charge although this was abandoned by the end of the evidence. At the end of the evidence the Judge invited submissions as to whether or not it was necessary to put questions to the jury.
1. Jason Alexander Paul has brought an action for damages against the Chief Constable of Humberside. He alleges that he has been the victim of the torts of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. The evidential stage of this case before the jury has been completed and there now remains the issue of what, if any, questions are to be left to the jury, and I have heard submissions accordingly.
2. The following factors are not in issue. On 31 March 1998 and into the early hours of 1 April, Mr Paul attended the Waterfront Club in Hull. There was some function there which was of special interest to the black community in Hull of which the claimant Mr Paul is a member, and it is common ground in this case that there are only small numbers of this ethnic minority. Also present in the club were Christopher Alder, an ex-paratrooper in, I think, his early 30s, and a young man called Jason Ramm. As between Christopher Alder and Ramm there was a disturbance within the club and, to cut that story short, Mr Alder was ejected. Just outside the club the closed circuit television cameras operate and on a multiplex that has been assembled Mr Alder is seen with his shirt off and anxious apparently to get into more fights. It is Mr Paul's case and therefore common ground in this action that he intervened. Although it is not shown on a CCTV camera, it is not in dispute that Mr Paul punched Mr Alder in the face causing him to fall to the ground. It has been Mr Paul's case throughout that Mr Alder was indeed a friend of his and all that he was doing was intervening to try and stop Mr Alder getting into further trouble, whereupon Mr Alder struck him 2 blows and he struck him back.
3. An ambulance attended. Mr Alder had been rendered temporarily unconscious but he was taken to the Hull Royal Infirmary. For reasons that remain unknown, in that establishment he behaved very badly. He refused to co-operate with any examination or treatment. He continually spat and urinated on the floor, such that the hospital authorities were concerned about his presence within the hospital.
4. Thus it was that the police were called and Mr Alder was taken to the Queen's Gardens Police Station. He was taken into the custody suite and laid on the floor plainly in some distress, and he was handcuffed behind his back and his trousers were down around his knees. Much of that which occurred in the custody suite is shown on a closed circuit TV video which also recorded conversations between the officers present. The jury have not seen this video and I have made a ruling about that, but counsel and I have. On the face of it, it shows during the first part (and it lasts for some hour or two) the officers are doing little, if anything, so far as Mr Alder is concerned beyond discussing what charge, if any, could be levied against him. However, there came a point when one officer, and therefore the other officers, became concerned about whether Mr Alder was continuing to breathe. They made attempts to resuscitate him. They called the paramedics, but tragically Christopher Alder died in plainly distressing and unpleasant circumstances on the floor of the custody suite in Queen's Gardens Police Station.
5. Detective Inspector Brookes was at home that night, but he was the senior detective on call, and in the early hours of 1 April he was telephoned at home and asked for advice about what should be done. He gave instructions that the scene should be preserved. Shortly afterwards he attended at Queen's Gardens, and within a few hours the matter of this death in custody had been reported to the Police Complaints Authority, who in turn has commissioned the West Yorkshire Police to start an inquiry.
6. The Assistant Chief Constable appointed Det Supt Bates as the senior investigating officer concerning the inquiry as to the events inside and outside the Waterfront Club. Under him was appointed Det Ch Insp Davison, leading a team of officers including Det Insp Brookes, Mr Ralphs and numbers of detective constables working in pairs, including DCs Wade and Mainland.
7. Shortly after Mr Alder's death, the 5 police officers who were in the custody suite at the material time were suspended from duty. Many months later there was an inquest which lasted several weeks, and the jury ultimately returned a verdict that Mr Alder had been unlawfully killed. This verdict was plainly based upon the proposition that officers were guilty of neglect in failing to treat him properly or at all within the custody suite. This verdict of the jury was the precursor to a prosecution brought in the Crown Court at Teesside against those officers in respect of the charge of manslaughter by gross neglect. They were acquitted upon the direction of the trial judge, who effectively ruled at the end of the case for the prosecution that there was no case for them to answer. I am told, and in so far as it is relevant for these purposes, that the evidence of cause of death remained unclear. Some medical witnesses who gave evidence at the inquest apparently had a change of view by the time it came to the trial at the Crown Court. In due course these officers were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paul v Chief Constable of Humberside Police
...was lawful and that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, and so did not leave any questions to the jury:[2003] Police Law Reports 363. P appealed. His principal complaint was that the arrest, charge and refusal of bail were unlawful because the police had been activa......