Silcott v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1996 |
| Date | 24 May 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Neill, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Waite
Police - complaints - investigating officers' reports - public policy immunity
The Court of Appeal so stated dismissing an appeal by the plaintiff, Winston Emmanuel Silcott, from the dismissal by Mr Justice Drake on April 12, 1995 of his appeal against a striking-out order made by Master Eyre on February 2, 1995.
The plaintiff had served statement of claim on the defendant commissioner pleading three causes of action: (i) conspiracy to pervert the administration of justice; (ii) misfeasance in public office, and (iii) malicious prosecution. The first two had been struck out.
The plaintiff sought to have them reinstated, the advantage being that he would be spared the need to prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause to prosecute, one of the essential elements of the tort of malicious prosecution, but an element lacking from the other two causes of action.
On October 6, 1985 Police Constable Blakelock was killed during a riot on a housing estate in Tottenham in North London. The plaintiff was arrested by Detective Chief Superintendent Melvin for the murder. He was interviewed by DCS Melvin and Detective Inspector Dingle.
On March 19, 1987 the plaintiff was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of the murder and of riot. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and ten years imprisonment respectively.
The only witness against the plaintiff at the trial was DCS Melvin who produced notes made by DI Dingle of the interview. The notes contained admissions by the plaintiff of his guilt.
On July 25, 1991 the Home Secretary ordered an investigation of the way in which the interview had been conducted and the authenticity of the notes of the interview.
Om October 1, 1991 the Home Secretary referred the convictions to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. On November 15, 1991 that court quashed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darker and Others v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police
...the extent of the immunity is to examine the grounds of public policy which explain the basis for the immunity. In Silcott v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1996] 8 Admin. L.R. 633, 637C-E Simon Brown L.J. said: "The public policy purposes underlying the immunity are essentially......
-
Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
...no duty of care. There is also some dispute over whether it applies to the emergent tort of abuse of public office. In Silcott v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (1996) 6 Admin. L.R. 633 and again in Docker v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (unreported), 17 March 1998, Co......
-
Meadow v General Medical Council
...from civil suit is ordinarily expressed as promoting two objectives: see eg Roy v Palmer per Lord Wilberforce at 480, Silcott v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1996] 8 Admin LR 633, per Simon Brown LJ at 637C-E; Stanton v Callaghan [2000] QB 75, per Chadwick LJ at 100 to 101 and......
-
Stanton and Another v Callaghan and Others
...The immunity of a witness from suit in respect of evidence given in court was described by Lord Justice Simon Brown in Silcott v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (1996) 8 Administrative Law Reports 633, at page 636, as a fundamental rule of law. The origins of the rule were traced ......