R v Kent Police Authority, ex parte Godden
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER of THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE SALMON,LORD JUSTICE KARMINSKI |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1971 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1971] EWCA Civ J0617-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 17 June 1971 |
[1971] EWCA Civ J0617-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by David George Godden from judgment of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division given on Wednesday, 19th May, 1971, whereby the applicant's motions for Orders of Prohibition and Mandamus were refused.
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Salmon and
Lord Justice Karminski
Mr. BRYAN ANNS (instructed by Messrs. Worthington-Edridge, Hulme of Folkestone) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr. RAYMOND SEARS (instructed by Messrs. Sharpe Pritchard & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Chief Inspector Godden Joined the Police Force in Kent in the year 1950. He did exceedingly well. In 1967 he attained the rank of Chief Inspector. He was put in charge of a traffic area at Seabrook near Folkestone. But then there were some incidents as a result of which in 1969 he was transferred to administrative duties at Canterbury. In short an office job. He felt that this transfer was a slur on him. He thought that he had been unjustly treated. He and his wife made accusations against his superiors. His wife in particular, wrote to many persons in high position. In consequence an inquiry was held by Mr. Pratt, then the Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire and Luton Constabulary. After bearing many witnesses, Mr. Pratt, on the 18th May of 1970, reported that there was no evidence of mal-practices or criminal activity by any member of the Kent County Constabulary. Chief Inspector Godden was not shown any of the papers in respect of that inquiry. He was only told the result.
The next incident was on the 4th July of 1970. A senior police officer went to search the desk used by Chief Inspector Godden. He unlocked the desk. There were in it two documents: one, a magazine called "Classics of Erotica"; and the other a long draft letter to a newspaper written as if by a young woman to an editor. It was most indecent. It detailed perversions. It is said to be in the Chief Inspector's writing, but that is not admitted by him.
These documents were put before the Deputy Chief Constable, Mr. Haslam, who said:
"I was of the opinion, after the finding of the letter and magazine in the Applicant's desk, that he was mentally unstable and that he should no longer continue to carry outthe duties of a police officer when in such a condition. It was arranged for the Applicant to be seen by the Chief Medical Officer of the Force — Dr. Crosbie Brown."
In consequence Dr. Crosbie Brown, the Chief Medical Officer, saw him on the 23rd July of 1970. Chief Inspector Godden said the interview only lasted about 12 minutes, and there was no physical examination at all of him. He and the doctor just talked together. We have been supplied with a copy of a report made by Dr. Crosbie Brown after that interview. (But it was not before the Divisional Court.) Dr. Crosbie Brown said in it:
"I interviewed Chief Inspector Godden at Canterbury Police Station on 23rd July 1970 at 3 p. m. I have read the report by H. R. Pratt Esq. I have read the statements and the attachments relating to Chief Inspector Godden. After reading the reports I formed the opinion that Godden is suffering from a mental disorder of paranoid type."
There follow two paragraphs in which the doctor says that Chief Inspector Godden was composed and showed no evidence of anxiety.
The report adds:
"I saw no useful purpose in referring to the magazine Erotica which was found in his desk, or to the story of flagellation said to have been written by him."
That report was sent to the Deputy Chief Constable, Mr. Haslam. He read it and a week later made this note on its "30/7/70. Spoke to Dr. Brown who agreed that in the circumstances it would be reasonable for Chief Inspector Godden to be placed on sick leave until consultants report is received. Necessary instructions sent to East Kent District."
The very next day, on the 31st July of 1970 Dr. Crosbie Brown gave his certificate in these words:
"Certificate of Unfitness for Police Duty Chief Inspector David George Godden I have considered the history of the above named and saw him on 23rd July, 1970.
I formed the opinion that he is suffering from a mental disorder of paranoid type and that he should be placed on sick leave until the report of the Consultant Psychiatrist is received, when further consideration can be given to the matter.
As it happened, the Chief Inspector was on annual leave at the time. He was told that he had been put on sick leave: and he has been on sick leave ever since. He has not been on duty at all. Naturally enough, the Chief Inspector was very disturbed. Within a few days he saw his own doctor, who sent him to a distinguished consultant psychiatrist, Dr. Hordern of King's College Hospital in London, Dr. Hordern examined him carefully. He saw both him and his wife. He had all sorts of tests made. He found nothing wrong with the Chief Inspector at all. He wrote reports in August 1970 and later on in May 1971. He concludes:
-"it is my opinion that he is normal psychiatrically and in good mental and physical health."
But nevertheless the Kent Police Authorities were not satisfied. They asked the Chief Inspector to be examined by a Dr. Pollitt. He and his wife went there and there were discussions into which I need not go. The long and short of it was that the Police Authorities had supplied the doctor with the Pratt Report and all the documents annexed to it, but they stipulatedthat Chief Inspector Godden was not to see it. They would not even allow his own medical adviser, Dr. Hordern, to see it.
On this matter Dr. Hordern made this comment:
"I understand that Drs. Crosbie Brown and J. D. Pollitt have formed diagnostic impressions on Chief Inspector Godden that differ from my own, and also that they have been supplied with information on his case that I have not had a chance to see. It may be that this information has played a part in the conclusions they have reached, and if this is indeed so I would appreciate the opportunity of scrutinizing the information and confronting Chief Inspector Godden with it so as to observe and to record his reactions."
That raises this crucial points: Should Dr. Hordern, the Chief Inspector's own medical consultant be at liberty to see the Pratt Report and other material? The police doctors have seen it, but not Dr. Hordern.
To go on with the story: on the 22nd January of 1971 the Kent Police Authority took the steps which are necessary under the Regulations compulsorily to retire him on the ground of ill health. For that purpose they referred the matter, as they are empowered to do under the Regulations, to a duly qualified medical practitioner selected by them. I will read the Regulation under the Police Pensions Regulations of 1971, which says:
"70(2) Where the police authority are considering whether a person is permanently disabled, they shall refer for decision to a duly qualified practitioner selected by them the following question:-
(a) whether the person concerned is disabled;
(b) whether the disablement is likely to be permanent.
The next Regulation, 71, says that if the decision goes against the police officer, he can appeal to a medical referee to be appointed by the Some Secretary. If he is found to be, permanently disabled, the police authority have power to require him to retire on the ground that he is permanently disabled for performance of his duties.
On the 22nd January of 1971 the police authorities referred the matter to Dr. Crosbie Brown. They wrote to the Chief Inspector, saying:
"The police authority have selected Dr. Crosbie Brown as their medical practitioner for the purpose" — that is to say, to see whether he was disabled and likely to be permanently disabled — "and you are required to submit yourself to such medical examination or attend such interview as Dr. Crosbie Brown may consider necessary."
Thereupon Dr. Crosbie Brown required Chief Inspector Godden to attend the surgery" of a Dr. Hierons. Chief Inspector Godden did not attend that appointment. His legal advisers told him not to do so. They gave that advice because he and his doctor had not been allowed to see the Pratt report or the material which had been presented to the doctors by the Kent police authority.
Seeing that Chief Inspector Godden did not attend the appointment with Dr. Hierons, the police authority said he was disobeying regulation 73A, and that "he was negligently or wilfully refusing to submit himself to medical examination". They said they would make their own determination on such evidence and medical advice as they thought necessary.
In view of that intimation, the Chief Inspector by his legal advisers made application to the Divisional Court for an order of prohibition. They sought to prohibit the police authority from taking steps compulsorily to retire him. The DivisionalCourt dismissed the application. They had not nearly as much material as we have. The Lord Chief Justice seems to have regarded the enquiry as a matter between doctor and patient. He said that you could not expect a doctor to disclose to his patient, especially in a mental or psychiatric matter, all the reports which were before him. Now we have more. We have, in particular, this report of the 23rd July, 1970. It was not disclosed until the day before the hearing in this Court. It makes a lot of difference.
I am clearly of opinion that the decisions leading to compulsory retirement are of a judicial character and must conform to the rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir James Fitz Allen Mitchell Appellant v Ephraim Georges (Sole Commissioner of the Ottley Hall Commission of Inquiry) Respondent [ECSC]
...375 distinguished; Davidson (AP) v Scottish Ministers [2005] UKHL 74 distinguished; R v Kent Police Authority and Others Ex parte Godden [1971] 2 QB 662 distinguished; London Borough of Southwark v Jiminez [2003] EWCA Civ 502 distinguished. 3. The court, in determining issues related to bia......
- Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia
- Ketua Polis Negara and Another; Syed Mahadzir bin Syed Abdullah
-
Re Tang King Kai
...of prejudice: see the views of Lord Merriman, in Munday v Munday [1954] 2 All ER 667 at p 671 and R v Kent Police Authority, ex p Godden [1971] 2 QB 662.Reverting to the application proper before me, I am of the view that the Committee has made its determinations in relation to the second a......