Sheppard v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 2002 |
| Date | 11 December 2002 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court and Reference:Court of Appeal; B3/2002/0934
Waller, Tuckey and Laws LJJ
Appearances:S Simblett (instructed by Fisher Meredith) for S; I Ashford-Thom (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary
Whether a judge had been entitled to find that a prisoner who alleged an assault by prison officers had fractured his own jaw; whether the judge's actions caused an unfair trial.
S claimed damages for assault and misfeasance in a public office. He had been remanded into custody and on reception into prison was asked to remove a chain from around his neck, which lead to an altercation. He alleged that he was then attacked by prison officers; they alleged he had been aggressive and had been lawfully restrained and taken to the segregation unit. A prison doctor found no signs of injury when she examined him shortly after his arrival there; however, several hours later, a nurse noticed bruising and that his jaw was out of alignment, and on further examination suspected that S had a broken cheek and jaw. He was seen by the doctor again the next day and subsequently taken to hospital for treatment of his injuries. His claim was dismissed by the judge, and he appealed on the basis that the judge followed the wrong approach in relation to an injury in custody, perversely found that S had fractured his own jaw and was biased against S.
Laws LJ
1. This is an appeal with permission granted by Brooke LJ on 28 May 2002 against the judgment of HHJ Rich QC given in the Central London County Court on 19 April 2002, when he dismissed the appellant's claim against the respondent Home Office for damages for assault and misfeasance in public office. The appellant's case was that he was viciously attacked by prison officers in the afternoon of 23 April 1996 in Highdown Prison (to which he had been remanded in custody by the Bexley magistrates on that day) and in consequence that he suffered bruising to the right eye and fractures to the jaw, nose and cheekbone and is left with some reduced sensation and facial deformity.
2. There are 3 grounds of appeal which are, of course, much elaborated in the appellant's counsel's skeleton argument. Since they are very crisply expressed in the notice of appeal it is convenient to set them out now before looking at the facts somewhat more closely:
"1. The learned judge misdirected himself as to the approach where an injury has been sustained whilst in custody and failed to draw the appropriate and/or necessary inferences from the pleaded cases and the evidence called.
2. The learned judge's finding that the applicant had fractured his own jaw deliberately was perverse and could not properly be found on the parties' pleaded cases and the evidence called.
3. The learned judge's improper resolution of the facts arose in part from his bias against the applicant's case and/or legal representation. The learned judge showed, by his demeanour and approach to the case, a hostility that went outside the proper judicial rôle and amounted to bias such that the applicant's case did not receive a proper hearing."
The second of these grounds is, so to speak, specific and limited to the particular facts arising here. The other 2 grounds, 1 and 3, may be said to raise somewhat wider issues, as Brooke LJ may have considered when he granted permission. The first ground engages consideration of the question whether, in a case where an inmate in custody has sustained injuries while in custody, there are particular principles which ought to govern the court's approach to the proof of misconduct by State officials, not least given learning of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The third ground engages issues concerning the standard of judicial decision-making against a background of case law here and in Strasbourg on the subject of judicial bias. While it is elementary and uncontentious that every litigant is entitled to an unbiased tribunal, there are issues touching the question whether bias is shown in any particular case. I should note that in granting permission to appeal Brooke LJ directed that if the complaints against the judge were to be pursued there would have to be a transcript of what was said in the trial which is claimed to support the case of bias. Several volumes of transcript are now before us.
3. I must describe the facts more closely. The account which follows is intended to be uncontentious save where I indicate the points of contention which were and are important for the issues in hand. After his remand to Highdown Prison by the magistrates' court the appellant, then being uninjured, was required to undergo the normal reception procedure at the prison and be strip-searched. He was told by Prison Officer Welford to remove a chain from around his neck. He declined do so. That was at about 4.25 pm. There was what may be described in neutral language as an altercation between the appellant and the prison officer. The whole question in the case was to what that led.
4. The appellant's case required the court to be satisfied to the appropriate standard that he had been wantonly attacked by prison officers. The respondent's case was that the appellant himself became aggressive and was lawfully restrained by officers who took him to the segregation unit. There is no doubt that he found himself in the segregation unit. There, at 4.45 or 4.50pm, he was examined by Dr Angela Williams, a prison doctor. She made a note of her examination on Form 213 as follows. I translate the acronyms in the note itself:
"Complains of pain right hand. On examination nothing abnormal detected. Nose deviated to left - old deformity he says but some bleeding."
As I have said, this note was set out on an Injury Report Form 213. Such a document is required by prison procedures to be completed when control and restraint techniques are used on a prisoner. In the same document the incident reporting officer had entered "nil" under the heading "Nature of injury". At all events, Dr Williams made no reference whatever to any injury to the jaw or cheekbone or of any complaint of pain other than in the respondent's hand.
5. There was a debate at trial, as one might expect, about how quickly evidence of such injuries would appear. There was also a dispute as to the thoroughness or perfunctoriness of Dr Williams' examination. The appellant said that the doctor at all times stood 6ft or 2 metres away from him in the segregation unit, he being required to stand behind a white line. As to that, there was a written memorandum made on 24 April 1996 by Prison Officer Calvert, part of which read:
"I was present on 23.4.96 at 16.50 hrs in special cell No 1 when the above mentioned prisoner was examined by Dr Williams. The examination was a proper hands-on examination and was not conducted from a distance of 5ft away as claimed by the prisoner."
6. As regards the question when the injuries suffered by the appellant might show themselves, there was an agreed view expressed in writing by 2 experts (who were not called to give oral testimony). That is to be found in a letter dated 12 December 2001 to the appellant's solicitors from Mr Stewart, the consultant oral and maxillofacial surgeon who had been instructed for the appellant. He had held a discussion with the respondent's expert, Dr Rouse. The letter contains this passage, referring to a paragraph in an earlier report which had been prepared by Dr Rouse:
"Paragraph 5 [that is a reference to Dr Rouse's report]: the first sentence states that one would expect the bruising to the right eye to be present immediately, ie within a few minutes, following the impact to the side of the face because of the comminuted nature of the fracture of the zygoma. Following discussion we agree that the bruising could come up within a few minutes or may take up to an hour to occur...
To continue reading
Request your trial