Ronald Wyatt v Thames Valley Police
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bryan |
| Judgment Date | 28 September 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 2489 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2890/2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 28 September 2018 |
[2018] EWHC 2489 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
THE HONOUORABLE Mr Justice Bryan
Case No: CO/2890/2017
The Queen on the Application of
Hugh Southey QC (instructed by Bark & Co) for the Claimants
Matthew Holdcroft (instructed by Thames Valley Police) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 5 September 2018
Approved Judgment
Introduction
This claim for judicial review is brought by the Claimants Ronald and Michael Wyatt (the “Claimants”/the “Wyatts”) against the Defendant, the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (the “Defendant”/the “Chief Constable”) pursuant to the permission granted by Sir Stephen Silber (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) at an oral renewal hearing on 8 November 2017, permission having been refused, on the papers, by Sir Wyn Williams on 15 September 2017.
In this claim the Claimants challenge the decision of the Defendant, following a criminal complaint made by the Claimants to the Defendant, regarding the conduct of a public authority (Oxfordshire County Council), that there was insufficient evidence to meet the Crown Prosecution Service's threshold so as to justify any action against anyone, resulting in the closing of the investigation into the criminal allegations made by the Claimants, as recorded in a decision letter dated 15 March 2017 sent by Detective Superintendent John of the Defendant to the Claimants (the “Decision Letter”).
The following issues arise from the grounds that have permission to apply for judicial review:
(1) Whether the Decision was flawed on the basis that it was an unlawful failure to carry out a proper/diligent investigation;
(2) Whether the Decision was flawed on the basis that it demonstrated a lack of independence;
(3) Whether that Decision was flawed on the basis that it contained inadequate reasons; and
(4) Whether the Decision was flawed because it contained a misdirection in law regarding potential criminal liability for copyright offences.
At the hearing the Claimants also sought permission to rely on further grounds which are said to have arisen in the light of disclosure that has been given:
(1) Whether the Defendant misdirected himself regarding the mens rea required to establish perverting the course of justice; and
(2) Whether the Defendant erred by adopting an unlawfully narrow approach to the circumstances in which an investigation should be referred to the CPS.
In relation to (2) the Claimants also sought disclosure of the Defendant's contact with the CPS in the context of a partially redacted entry on 13 February 2017 in the Investigation Log providing “[redacted] who states it is not a CPS matter and has not reached the police threshold”. The Defendant objected to disclosure on the basis of legal professional privilege and public interest immunity. In the context of consideration of the issues arising, the Defendant provided the Court with a copy of the associated email of 13 February 2017. The Defendant, without conceding the issues raised, did not object to the Claimants being informed that the email was headed “Advice”, enclosed an MG3 seeking advice, and that the CPS had responded that it was not believed to meet the criteria for investigative advice from the CPS. In such circumstances the Claimants did not pursue their application for permission to rely upon further ground (2). I agreed that further ground (1) would be considered at a rolled-up hearing, with permission being granted in due course if considered appropriate, at the same time as the grounds on which permission had been obtained.
The Parties and Relevant Individuals
The Claimants, Ronald and Michael Wyatt, are the directors of a company, Wyatt Bros (Oxford) Ltd (the “Company”) that owns the Waterstock Golf Course in Oxfordshire (the “Golf Course”). The Company, and in consequence the Wyatts, have been involved in a number of disputes with Oxfordshire County Council (the “Council”/“OCC”) in relation to planning matters and the land in the vicinity of the Golf Course. Much of the background to those disputes is set out in the judgment of Beatson J (as he then was) in the case of Oxfordshire County Council v Wyatt Bros (Oxford Limited, Michael Wyatt, Ronald Charles Wyatt [2005] EWHC 2402 (QB) which I will not repeat here.
In particular:
(1) In 1997 the Council issued enforcement notices in relation to land owned by the Company for breach of planning control. Essentially it was alleged that material had been unlawfully deposited;
(2) The enforcement notices resulted in a public inquiry that took place between 26 January 1999 and 3 February 1999. During the course of that inquiry the Inspector directed that three plans (“Plans A, B and C”) should be produced by the Council that would make the requirements of the enforcement notices more precise and would make the monitoring of implementation more straightforward;
(3) The Claimants challenged the decision reached following the first public inquiry. In 2003 a further public inquiry was held in which the Council relied on Plan C;
(4) On 2 November 2005 the Council obtained an injunction from Beatson J. This essentially required the Company to return the land to levels shown on Plan C;
(5) In July 2006 the Company applied to the High Court for an order that it was impossible to comply with Plan C. That application was never determined. Instead Crane J invited the parties to come up with a new plan by consent; and
(6) The Company was subsequently found to have breached court orders. Ronald and Michael Wyatt, as directors of the Company, were sentenced to immediate sentences of imprisonment of six and four months respectively. Those contempt proceedings were eventually determined by the Court of Appeal.
As the Claimants identify at paragraph 5 of their Skeleton Argument, throughout the course of the proceedings described above, there has never been a final determination of the extent to which Plan C (which is at the heart of the criminal complaints made by the Wyatts) was inaccurate and the reasons why it was inaccurate in the light of all the evidential material that exists. As will be apparent it is almost twenty years ago since the original events that led to the creation of Plan C (albeit the Claimants also rely on subsequent events over an extended period of time). Inevitably those events are no longer fresh in the minds of those who had contemporary knowledge of such matters. This has an obvious potential impact in relation to a criminal investigation into, and any criminal proceedings in relation to, the circumstances in which Plan C was created (and thereafter deployed).
The parties' respective positions in relation to the Plan C, are divergent, in the context of the evidence that exists (much, but not all of which, is before the Court). For their part the Wyatts make a number of allegations regarding Plan C, and in particular the involvement of Suzi Coyne, a consultant working for the Council at the material time, which form the basis of the criminal allegations advanced by the Wyatts. In particular they refer to the fact that Ms Coyne stated in a witness statement in 2005 that the contours on Plan C had been taken from a plan known as “WAT9”, and that she has continued to make similar statements thereafter, whereas the Claimants allege that in the light of other information that has emerged Ms Coyne's account is false, a submission which they say is supported by material obtained from a Christopher Bowden, an engineer instructed by the Claimants, which they say demonstrates that Ms Coyne's account of the origins of Plan C cannot be accurate. They say that further material that has been obtained, also supports the opinion of Mr Bowden. It is the Claimants' belief that such matters (as well as other matters they rely upon) demonstrate criminal behaviour including on Ms Coyne's part. For example, one of the allegations is that the submission of an inaccurate plan amounted (on the facts) to perverting the course of justice.
For its part the Defendant submits that the circumstances in which Plan C were created are apparent on the available evidence, and they do not give rise to any cause for criminal complaint against Ms Coyne or anyone else. On the contrary, the Defendant submits that the circumstances in which Plan C was created are readily apparent on the evidence that exists, and are entirely innocent. Far from there being sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of success against any subject on any charge (the threshold test), there is, says the Defendant, no prospect whatsoever of success. What is more, says the Defendant, it is not a question of inadequacy of evidence, but rather that such evidence as exists is fatal to any realistic prospect of success.
It is important to bear in mind at all stages, as I have done, that what is under consideration is the merit or otherwise of the public law challenge to the Decision Letter and the grounds in relation thereto. It is no part of the role of this court to adjudicate or make findings as to the factual dispute that underlies the allegations of criminal conduct that are made. However, as was accepted by Hugh Southey QC on behalf of the Claimants, the merit or otherwise of such public law challenge cannot be considered in a vacuum. It is necessary to have regard to the evidence that exists (or which might be obtainable on further investigation) when evaluating the criticisms made of the Decision Letter.
Indeed in this regard Mr Southey QC submits that a “relatively intensive standard of review” is required when determining whether there has been compliance with the requisite standards imposed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reason‐Giving in Administrative Law: Where are We and Why have the Courts not Embraced the ‘General Common Law Duty to Give Reasons’?
...vSecretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1673(Karia 2018).17 See, for example, R (Wyatt) vThames Valley Police [2018] EWHC 2489 (Admin).18 See, for example, R (Tower Hamlets LBC) vSSCLG [2014] EWHC 4363 (Admin) (To w e rHamlets).19 See, for instance, R(H)vSecretary of Sta......