R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, ex parte Wiley ; R v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police, ex parte Sunderland

Weekly Law Reports The Law Reports The Times Law Reports Cited authorities (27) Cited in (130) Precedent Map Related
JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date14 July 1994
Date14 July 1994
[HOUSE OF LORDS] REGINA v. CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE WEST MIDLANDS POLICE, Ex parte WILEY REGINA v. CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE, Ex parte SUNDERLAND [CONSOLIDATED APPEALS] 1994 April 12, 13; July 14 Lord Templeman, Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Woolf and Lord Lloyd of Berwick

Practice - Discovery - Public interest immunity - Complaints against police - Police refusal to undertake not to use complaints procedure documents or rely on information in them in civil proceedings - Complainants refusing to make statements - Whether public interest immunity prohibiting any use of documents in connection with civil proceedings - Whether police wrong not to give undertakings

The first applicant was arrested, detained and charged with robbery and shotgun offences. At his trial the prosecution offered no evidence. In August 1989 he made a complaint against the police and in 1990 he commenced an action for damages against the Chief Constable. The second applicant was arrested following a street fight during which he had struck a plain-clothed police officer. He claimed that he was seriously assaulted at the police station and made a complaint to that effect. Each applicant declined to make any statements under the police complaints procedure without an undertaking from the police that documents which came into existence for that purpose would not be used, and information contained in them would not be relied upon, in any civil proceedings commenced or contemplated by him. In each case the Chief Constable declined to give any such undertaking. Each applicant applied for judicial review by way of, inter alia, a declaration that the Chief Constable's decision had been unlawful and an injunction restraining the Chief Constable from making use of the documents in the civil proceedings. Popplewell J. held that public interest immunity attached to police complaints procedure documents as a class, so as to prevent their disclosure and the use of information therefrom in civil proceedings. He therefore granted the declarations sought and, in the second case, the injunction. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Chief Constables' appeals.

On the Chief Constables' appeals: —

Held, allowing the appeals, that in the absence of any clear and compelling evidence that it was necessary, there was no justification for imposing a general class public interest immunity on all documents generated by an investigation into a complaint against the police under Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; that, although evidence might be adduced in future applications as to why immunity should be extended, because of their contents, to particular documents relating to a police investigation into a complaint, any such application was to be determined wherever possible in the actual proceedings to which the documents were relevant rather than in collateral proceedings, and, if the claim was well-founded, the immunity would be limited, in the absence of special circumstances, to the disclosure of the documents or their contents rather than the use of knowledge obtained therefrom; and that, accordingly, since statements made for the purposes of police complaints investigations had not been shown to attract public interest immunity, the Chief Constables had not acted unlawfully in refusing to give the undertakings sought by the applicants (post, pp. 435H–436A, 437C–D, F–438A, 458H–459A, D–F, G–460C, 461B–D).

Neilson v. Laugharne [1981] Q.B. 736, C.A.; Hehir v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1982] 1 W.L.R. 715, C.A.; Makanjuola v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1992] 3 All E.R. 617, C.A. and Halford v. Sharples [1992] 1 W.L.R. 736, C.A. overruled.

Decision of the Court of Appeal [1994] 1 W.L.R. 114; [1994] 1 All E.R. 702 reversed.

The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinion:

Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England [1979] 1 W.L.R. 473; [1979] 2 All E.R. 461, C.A.; [1980] A.C. 1090; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 722; [1979] 3 All E.R. 700, H.L.(E.)

Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1882) 11 Q.B.D. 55, C.A.

Conway v. Rimmer [1968] A.C. 910; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 998; [1968] 1 All E.R. 874, H.L.(E.)

Coventry Newspapers Ltd., Ex parte [1993] Q.B. 278; [1992] 3 W.L.R. 916; [1993] 1 All E.R. 86, C.A.

Crompton (Alfred) Amusement Machines Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (No. 2) [1974] A.C. 405; [1973] 3 W.L.R. 268; [1973] 2 All E.R. 1169, H.L.(E.)

D. v. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [1978] A.C. 171; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 201; [1977] 1 All E.R. 589, H.L.(E.)

Duncan v. Cammell, Laird & Co. Ltd. [1942] A.C. 624; [1942] 1 All E.R. 587, H.L.(E.)

Halford v. Sharples [1992] 1 W.L.R. 736; [1992] 3 All E.R. 624, C.A.

Hehir v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1982] 1 W.L.R. 715; [1982] 2 All E.R. 335, C.A.

Makanjuola v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1992] 3 All E.R. 617, C.A.

Neilson v. Laugharne [1981] Q.B. 736; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 537; [1981] 1 All E.R. 829, C.A.

Peach v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1986] Q.B. 1064; [1986] 2 W.L.R. 1080; [1986] 2 All E.R. 129, C.A.

Reg. v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Hart-Leverton, The Times, 8 February 1990, D.C.

Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Osman [1991] 1 W.L.R. 281; [1992] 1 All E.R. 108; 93 Cr.App.R. 202, D.C.

Reg. v. Lewes Justices, Ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department [1973] A.C. 388; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 279; [1972] 2 All E.R. 1057, H.L.(E.)

Reg. v. Preston (Stephen) [1993] 3 W.L.R. 891; [1993] 4 All E.R. 638, H.L.(E.)

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Air Canada v. Secretary of State for Trade [1983] 2 A.C. 394; [1983] 2 W.L.R. 494; [1983] 1 All E.R. 910, H.L.(E.)

Evans v. Chief Constable of Surrey [1988] Q.B. 588; [1988] 3 W.L.R. 127; [1989] 2 All E.R. 594

Goodwin v. Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary (unreported), 22 October 1992; Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 1003 of 1992, C.A.

Reg. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte Rossminster Ltd. [1980] A.C. 952; [1980] 2 W.L.R. 1; [1980] 1 All E.R. 80, H.L.(E.)

Tipene v. Apperley [1978] 1 N.Z.L.R. 761

APPEALS from the Court of Appeal.

These were consolidated appeals (1) by the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and (2) by the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police, by leave of the Court of Appeal (Nourse, Staughton and Nolan L.JJ.) [1994] 1 W.L.R. 114, against the Court of Appeal's judgment dismissing the chief constables' appeals against the order of Popplewell J. on 16 December 1992 (1) granting a declaration that the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police had acted unlawfully in refusing to give an undertaking to Kelvin Raymond Wiley not to use or rely on documents created in the course of police complaints investigations in civil proceedings commenced against the Chief Constable by Mr. Wiley; and (2) granting a declaration that the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police had acted unlawfully in refusing to give an undertaking to Tony Sunderland not to use or rely on documents created in the course of police complaints investigations in Mr. Sunderland's proposed civil proceedings against the Chief Constable and granting an injunction restraining the Chief Constable from using such documents in those proceedings.

The facts are stated in the opinion of Lord Woolf.

Jeremy Gompertz Q.C. and Simon Freeland for the chief constables.

Frederic Reynold Q.C. and Richard Clayton for Mr. Wiley and Mr. Sunderland.

David Pannick Q.C. for the Police Complaints Authority.

Their Lordships took time for consideration.

14 July. Lord Templeman. My Lords, the comprehensive speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Woolf, sets out the facts involved in these appeals, discusses the relevant authorities and concludes that public interest immunity does not extend generally to all documents generated by an investigation of a complaint against the police under Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I agree with his reasoning and his conclusions but wish to make some observations on the ambit of discovery and the restrictions imposed by public interest immunity in connection with litigation.

Public interest immunity is a ground for refusing to disclose a document which is relevant and material to the determination of issues involved in civil or criminal proceedings. A claim to public interest immunity can only be justified if the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the document outweighs the public interest in securing justice.

Whenever disclosure in litigation is under consideration, the first question is whether a document is sufficiently relevant and material to require disclosure in the interests of justice. In civil proceedings a document need only be disclosed if disclosure is necessary “for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs:” R.S.C., Ord. 24, r. 8. In criminal proceedings a document need only be disclosed if it is relevant and material for the establishment of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In civil proceedings, the relevance and materiality of a document depend on the issues between the parties established by written pleadings. In criminal proceedings there is as yet no provision for written pleadings. Prosecution authorities know which documents are relevant to the prosecution but they cannot know for certain which documents will be relevant to the defence. In recent cases the Court of Appeal has quashed convictions because of the failure on the part of the police to disclose documents which, subsequently to the convictions, were held to be relevant and material to the establishment of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In order to avoid criticism and a miscarriage of justice one way or the other, the police authorities now feel obliged to disclose documents of doubtful relevance and materiality. In civil...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
98 cases
  • R A v Chief Constable of B Constabulary and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 6 December 2013
    ...indicated that the latter course is not required. 32 The proper approach is that laid down by the House of Lords in R v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police ex parte Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274. I agree with the claimant's formulation that the essence of PII is the striking of a balance betwee......
  • Darahman Ibrahim v Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Negeri Perlis
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • O'Callaghan v Mahon
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 July 2005
    ...1996ALFRED CROMPTON AMUSEMENT MACHINES LTD v CUSTOMS & EXCISE COMMISSIONERS 1974 AC 405 R v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST MIDLANDS POLICE 1995 1 AC 274 HAUGHEY & MULHERN v MORIARTY & ORS 1999 3 IR 1 NATIONAL IRISH BANK LTD & ANOR v RADIO TELIFIS EIREANN (RTE) 1998 2 IR 465 STRINGER v IRISH TIME......
  • Worcestershire County Council (First Claimant) Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board (Second Claimant) v Hm Coroner for the County of Worcestershire
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 20 June 2013
    ...protecting vulnerable children by dissuading prospective informants in making disclosures to the society. 67 In Regina v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police ex parte Wiley [1995] 1AC274 The House of Lords was concerned with a claim that public interest immunity attached as a class to do......
    • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
5 books & journal articles
  • Closed Trials and Secret Allegations
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 80-4, August 2016
    • 1 August 2016
    ...Ibid. at 119.40. Ibid. at 86.41. Ibid. at 203.42. Ibid. at 86.43. Ibid. at 85.44. RvChief Constable of West Midlands, ex p Wiley [1994] 3 WLR 433.45. T. Hickman, ‘Turning out the lights? The Justice and Security Act 2013’, (UK Constitutional Law Association, 2013).Available at: https://ukco......
  • CABINET IMMUNITY IN CANADA: THE LEGAL BLACK HOLE.
    • Canada
    • McGill Law Journal Vol. 63 No. 2, December 2017
    • 1 December 2017
    ...supra note 102 at 708. (247) I am paraphrasing a statement made by Lord Woolf in R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, [1994] 3 All ER 420 at 438, [1994] 3 WLR 433 (HL (Eng)). While Parliament can regulate Cabinet immunity by way of statute, in doing so, it must preserve the judg......
  • Book Review: Police Powers: A Practitioners' Guide
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles No. 69-4, October 1996
    • 1 October 1996
    ...such as this are available for thosewishing to study.Recent cases include: R. v. Chief Constableofthe West Midlandsex parte Wiley [1994] 3 WLR 433 (immunity of police complaintdocuments), R. v. Effik [1994] 3 WLR 583 (police interception ofcordless telephone conversations), R. v. Pieterson ......
  • Book Review: Black Police in America
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles No. 69-4, October 1996
    • 1 October 1996
    ...such as this are available for thosewishing to study.Recent cases include: R. v. Chief Constableofthe West Midlandsex parte Wiley [1994] 3 WLR 433 (immunity of police complaintdocuments), R. v. Effik [1994] 3 WLR 583 (police interception ofcordless telephone conversations), R. v. Pieterson ......
    • Get Started for Free
Add as a preferred source on Google