R Newsquest Media Group Ltd v The Legally Qualified Chair of the Police Misconduct Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Ellenbogen |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 299 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | No. CO/2541/2021 |
| Year | 2022 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 299 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE
(In Private)
No. CO/2541/2021
and
Mr J. Scherbel-Ball (instructed by Jaffa Law) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
Mr J. Price (instructed by Preiskel & Co LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
Mr D. Hutcheon (instructed by Pennington Manches Cooper LLP) appeared on behalf of the First Interested Party.
THE SECOND AND THIRD INTERESTED PARTIES were not present and not represented.
Introduction
) At the outset of hearing to which this judgment relates, the claimant applied for a restricted reporting order under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and for an order that the hearing takes place in private. Neither application was resisted by the defendant, or the first interested party. The applications were made given the nature of the matters to be considered, which included the first interested party's application for anonymity in these proceedings, and the claimant's application to make collateral use of certain documentation which had been disclosed by the defendant and which, pending my ruling, was confidential. In those circumstances, for the purposes of CPR 39.2(3), I was satisfied that publicity would defeat the object of the hearing and that it was necessary to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice. In accordance with CPR 39.2(4), I ordered that, until further order, Mr Cooke's identity must not be disclosed, which I considered necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect his interests. I made an associated order under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Those orders remain in place and will be revisited following this judgment.
) The claimant is a regional news publisher, which owns a portfolio of local newspapers and online media outlets, one of which is the Basingstoke Gazette. Until April 2021, the first interested party, Mr Cooke, was a police constable, serving, for approximately 20 years, with Hampshire Police (of which the third interested party is the chief constable), in the area for which the Basingstoke Gazette is the local newspaper. Following misconduct proceedings (‘the Misconduct Proceedings’), culminating in a misconduct hearing in April 2021, of which the defendant was the independent panel Chair (‘the Misconduct Hearing’), Mr Cooke was dismissed, with immediate effect, for gross misconduct. The Tribunal found that, in the course of his work, he had come into contact with vulnerable female members of the public, thereby obtaining their personal details. It concluded that he had “systematically abused” that information “for his own private purposes”, being the pursuit of inappropriate and prohibited relationships with the vulnerable women concerned. It described Mr Cooke's conduct as having been of the “utmost severity” and “intentional, deliberate, targeted and planned”. It held that his conduct had “multiple aggravating factors … including targeting, malign intent, abuse of power, sustained behaviour over a period of time, vulnerable and multiple victims and multiple proven breaches …”, going on to conclude that no sanction other than dismissal without notice “would be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the police service and uphold the reputation of the police service and the high standards that are reasonably expected of police officers by the public.” The claimant wishes fully to report on the Misconduct Proceedings, and on these proceedings for judicial review, as raising matters of significant public interest. The second interested party is the Independent Office for Police Conduct (“the IOPC”), which is the statutory body responsible for promoting public confidence in policing.
) This judgment follows the hearing of:
a) the claimant's application, dated 15 October 2021, by which it seeks:
i) the court's permission, pursuant to CPR r.31.22(1)(b), to use specified documents, disclosed in these judicial review proceedings, for the purpose of reporting as indicated above;
ii) an order that its costs of these proceedings be paid by Mr Cooke, on the indemnity basis, including an interim payment on account, of £20,000; and
iii) to withdraw its claim for judicial review; and
b) Mr Cooke's application, dated 24 January 2021, by which he seeks an order for anonymity in these proceedings.
) In circumstances to which I shall shortly turn, none of the parties resists the claimant's application to withdraw its claim for judicial review. Mr Cooke opposes the claimant's further applications. He has filed neither an acknowledgement of service nor any witness statement in response. In counsel's short written submissions, dated 25 November 2021:
a) it was said that there should be no order as to costs; alternatively, any such order should be made against the defendant;
b) it was submitted that the claimant's request for permission to use certain documentation should be refused, on the basis that the latter identifies him, alternatively, that any permitted use should not identify him; and
c) the court was “invited” to make an anonymity order, pursuant to CPR r.39.2(4). As noted above, a formal application has since been made.
) The IOPC has stated that its Director General is “content” with the claimant's proposal to withdraw its claim and with its application for access to the specified documents for the purpose of reporting the Misconduct Proceedings. Its position is that the Police Misconduct Tribunal is a neutral tribunal and, as such, should not be ordered to pay the claimant's costs. The claimant also resists Mr Cooke's alternative position on costs.
The claimant's applications
Withdrawal of the claim
) The claimant's position is that it initiated judicial review proceedings because Mr Cooke had:
a) represented (falsely) to the claimant that the defendant had made an anonymity direction in his favour in the Misconduct Proceedings;
b) relied upon that reported anonymity direction as the basis for a threatened claim against the claimant for damages and injunctive relief for the tort of misuse of private information, were the claimant to report his identity in connection with the Misconduct Proceedings; and
c) refused to provide the claimant with the purported anonymity direction and the reasons supporting it, upon the claimant's request.
) The claimant asserts that it, first, responsibly, sought to engage with the defendant in order to obtain the necessary information and to apply to set aside the directions which Mr Cooke claimed to have been made. By email dated 1 July 2021, the defendant had refused to provide the requested directions, evidence and reasons in support, or to allow the claimant to challenge them. Accordingly, judicial review proceedings had been filed, on 16 July 2021, asserting three grounds of review:
a) Ground 1: unlawfully and in breach of the claimant's Article 10 ECHR rights, the defendant had refused: (i) to provide the claimant with the evidence in support of Mr Cooke's stated applications and his note of the reasons for granting the purported anonymity direction and the direction that the misconduct hearing be held in private; and (ii) the claimant's request that a hearing be convened to allow it to apply to set aside the defendant's purported decisions. The claimant explained that, as a result, it was “… not able to understand fully the purported lawful basis for the Derogation Decisions or apply to set them aside”;
b) Ground 2: the purported anonymity direction was unlawful because it was ultra vires, as the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012, which governed the Misconduct Proceedings, did not permit the making of such a direction; and
c) Ground 3: the purported anonymity direction and the direction to hear the Misconduct Hearing in private were unlawful as constituting unwarranted and unjustified interferences with the principle of open justice and with the claimant's rights under Article 10 ECHR.
) In fact, the documentation subsequently disclosed by the defendant in these proceedings has shown that Mr Cooke's assertions were false; the defendant had never made an anonymity direction. Consequently, the claimant submits, these proceedings were brought on an erroneous basis and, in its submission, directly as a result of Mr Cooke's (i) false representations; and (ii) refusal to provide the requested information, from which their falsity would have been apparent.
) Neither the defendant nor any of the interested parties had opposed the granting of permission to bring judicial review...
To continue reading
Request your trial