Ridge (A.P.) v Baldwin and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Evershed,Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest,Lord Hodson,Lord Devlin |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1963 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1963] UKHL J0314-1 |
| Docket Number | Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/JU/4/3/1111 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 14 March 1963 |
[1963] UKHL J0314-1
HOUSE OF LORDS
Lord Reid
Lord Evershed
Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest
Lord Hodson
Lord Devlin
Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/JU/4/3/1111
My Lords,
The Appellant, Mr. Ridge, became Chief Constable of the County Borough of Brighton in 1956, after serving in the Brighton Police Force for some thirty-three years. At a meeting of the Watch Committee, the police authority, on 7th March, 1958, it was resolved that he should be dismissed, and he now maintains that that resolution was void and of no effect because he had no notice of the grounds on which the Committee proposed to act and no opportunity to be heard in his own defence.
The Appellant had been arrested on 25th October, 1957, and subsequently tried on a charge of conspiring with the senior members of his force and others to obstruct the course of justice, and had been suspended from duty on 26th October. He was acquitted on 28th February, but the other two members of the force were convicted and in sentencing them the trial Judge, Donovan, J., made a statement which included grave reflections on the Appellant's conduct. He was then indicted on a charge of corruption and was on 6th March acquitted, no evidence having been offered against him. On this occasion Donovan, J. made a further statement. On the day following that statement the Watch Committee met and summarily dismissed the Appellant. I shall not deal further with these matters because my noble and learned friend, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, intends to do so.
The power of dismissal is contained in section 191 (4) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. So far as I am aware that subsection is the only statutory provision regarding dismissal, and the Respondents purported to act under it. It is in these terms:
"The watch committee, or any two justices having jurisdiction in the borough, may at any time suspend, and the watch committee may at any time dismiss, any borough constable whom they think negligent in the discharge of his duty, or otherwise unfit for the same."
The Appellant maintains that the Watch Committee ought to have proceeded in accordance with regulations made under the Police Act, 1919, section 4 (1), which authorised the Secretary of State to make regulations as to, inter alia, the conditions of service of the members of all police forces in England and Wales. Regulations were duly made, but the Respondents maintain that they do not apply to this case. For the moment I shall assume in their favour that that is so and consider whether the Act of 1882 taken by itself authorised them to do as they did.
The Appellant's case is that in proceeding under the Act of 1882 the Watch Committee were bound to observe what are commonly called the principles of natural justice. Before attempting to reach any decision they were bound to inform him of the grounds on which they proposed to act and give him a fair opportunity of being heard in his own defence. The authorities on the applicability of the principles of natural justice are in some confusion, and so I find it necessary to examine this matter in some detail. The principle audi alteram partem goes back many centuries in our law and appears in a multitude of judgments of judges of the highest authority. In modern times opinions have sometimes been expressed to the effect that natural justice is so vague as to be practically meaningless. But I would regard these as tainted by the perennial fallacy that because something cannot be cut and dried or nicely weighed or measured there-fore it does not exist. The idea of negligence is equally insusceptible of exact definition, but what a reasonable man would regard as fair procedure in particular circumstances and what he would regard as negligence in particular circumstances are equally capable of serving as tests in law, and natural justice as it has been interpreted in the Courts is much more definite than that. It appears to me that one reason why the authorities on natural justice have been found difficult to reconcile is that insufficient attention has been paid to the great difference between various kinds of cases in which it has been sought to apply the principle. What a Minister ought to do in considering objections to a scheme may be very different from what a Watch Committee ought to do in considering whether to dismiss a Chief Constable. So I shall deal first with cases of dismissal. These appear to fall into three classes, dismissal of a servant by his master, dismissal from an office held during pleasure, and dismissal from an office where there must be something against a man to warrant his dismissal.
The law regarding master and servant is not in doubt. There cannot be specific performance of a contract of service, and the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any reason or for none. But if he does so in a manner not warranted by the contract he must pay damages for breach of contract. So the question in a pure case of master and servant does not at all depend on whether the master has heard the servant in his own defence: it depends on whether the facts emerging at the trial prove breach of contract. But this kind of case can resemble dismissal from an office where the body employing the man is under some statutory or other restriction as to the kind of contract which it can make with its servants, or the grounds on which it can dismiss them. The present case does not fall within this class because a Chief Constable is not the servant of the Watch Committee or indeed of anyone else.
Then there are many cases where a man holds an office at pleasure. Apart from judges and others whose tenure of office is governed by statute, all servants and officers of the Crown hold office at pleasure, and this has even been held to apply to a colonial judge ( Terrell v. Secretary of State for the Colonies and Another [1953] 2 Q.B. 482). It has always been held, I think rightly, that such an officer has no right to be heard before he is dismissed, and the reason is clear. As the person having the power of dismissal need not have anything against the officer, he need not give any reason. That was stated as long ago as 1670 in Rex v. Mayor of Stratford, 1 Lev. 291, where the Corporation dismissed a Town Clerk who held office durante bene placito. The leading case on this matter appears to be the Darlington School case (1844) 6 Q.B. 682, although that decision was doubted by Lord Hatherley, L.C. in Dean v. Bennett, 6 Ch. App. 489, and distinguished on narrow grounds in Willis v. Childe, 13 B. 117. I fully accept that where an office is simply held at pleasure the person having power of dismissal cannot be bound to disclose his reasons. No doubt he would in many cases tell the officer and hear his explanation before deciding to dismiss him. But if he is not bound to disclose his reason and does not do so, then, if the Court cannot require him to do so, it cannot determine whether it would be fair to hear the officer's case before taking action. But again that is not this case. In this case the 1882 Act only permits the Watch Committee to take action on the grounds of negligence or unfitness. Let me illustrate the difference by supposing that a Watch Committee who had no complaint against their present Chief Constable heard of a man with quite outstanding qualifications who would like to be appointed. They might think it in the public interest to make the change, but they would have no right to do it. But there could be no legal objection to dismissal of an officer holding office at pleasure in order to put a better man in his place.
So I come to the third class, which includes the present case. There I find an unbroken line of authority to the effect that an officer cannot lawfully be dismissed without first telling him what is alleged against him and hearing his defence or explanation. An early example is Bagg's case (1615) 11 Co. Rep. 93b, though it is more properly deprivation of the privilege of being a burgess of Plymouth. Rex v. Gaskin (1799) 8 Durn & East 209, arose out of the dismissal of a Parish Clerk, and Lord Kenyon, C.J. referred to audi alteram partem as one of the first principles of justice. Reg. v. Smith (1844) 5 Q.B. 614 was another case of dismissal of a Parish Clerk, and Lord Denman, C.J. held that even personal knowledge of the offence was no sub-stitute for hearing the officer: his explanation might disprove criminal motive or intent and bring forward other facts in mitigation, and in any event delaying to hear him would prevent yielding too hastily to first impressions. Ex pane Ramshay (1852) 21 L.J. 238 is important. It dealt with the removal from office of a county court judge, and the form of the legislation which authorised the Lord Chancellor to act is hardly distinguishable from the form of section 191 which confers powers on the Watch Committee. The Lord Chancellor was empowered if he should think fit to remove on the ground of inability or misbehaviour, but Lord Campbell, C.J. said that this was "only on the implied condition prescribed by the principles of eternal justice". In Osgood v. Nelson, L.R. 5 H.L. 636, objection was taken to the way in which the Corporation of the City of London had removed the Clerk to the Sheriff's Court, and Lord Hatherley, L.C. said (p. 649):
"I apprehend, my Lords, that, as has been stated by the learned Baron who has delivered, in the name of the Judges, their unanimous opinion, the Court of Queen's Bench has always considered that it has been open to that Court, as in this case it appears to have considered, to correct any Court, or tribunal, or body of men who may have a power of this description, a power of removing from office, if it should be found that such persons have disregarded any of the essentials of justice in the course of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial