Stevenson v. Aubrook and others
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834100500410 |
| Date | 01 October 1941 |
| Published date | 01 October 1941 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Stevenson v. Aubrook and Others
AS we anticipated in an article on
the
case of Ledwith v.
Roberts,printed in Volume I of this Journal at page
122,
the
judgments'
of Greene and Scott L.JJ., in that case have
led to difficulty on almost every occasion on which they
have since been
under
review. This, it will be remembered,
was particularly so in the case of Rawlings v. Smith, dealt
with in Volume
II
at page
100,
and now again these judgments
have led to difficulty in
the
recent case of Stevenson v. Auhrook
and Others.
The
case which we now deal with was an action for
damages for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment brought
against two police constables and an Inspector.
It
was tried
at the Manchester Assizes in April,
1941,
and as the facts
are fully set out in Mr. Justice Hallett's
judgment
we shall
print
the
judgment
first
and
then append
our
comments.
We are indebted to
Mr.
Frank Knowles, the
Town
Clerk
of Stockport, for a transcript of
the
shorthand note.
Mr.
Justice Hallett delivered
judgment
as follows
:-
In
this case the plaintiff, Raymond Stevenson, was at
the
material
times a Police Constable of
the
Manchester City Force,
and
he
brings this action claiming damages for unlawful arrest
and
false
imprisonment against two Police Constables
and
an Inspector in
the Stockport Borough Police Force. Obviously, therefore, the case
is of some importance from
the
point of view of
tge
parties to it.
But, furthermore, as the result of the assistance which I have received
from Counsel I take
the
view
that
it is a case of considerable public
importance for reasons which I shall endeavour to indicate.
By way of preface I may say
that
in
the
case of Ledwith against
Roberts, 1937, 1 King's Bench, page 232,
the
Court
of Appeal gave
leave to the appellants, who were in substance
the
Liverpool Corpora-
tion, to appeal to
the
House of Lords
upon
the Corporation
under-
taking to pay
the
respondent's costs in any
evc!nt.
So far as I am
360
STEVENSON v. AUBROOK AND OTHERS 361
aware
the
Liverpool Corporation did
not
avail itself of
that
leave,
with
the
result
that
what
was said in Ledwith against Ruberts has
never been reviewed by
their
lordships in
the
House of
Lords.
Irecognize the very great necessity at
the
present
time of conserving
the
ratepayers' money, and nothing which I am
about
to say
must
be
taken as in any way dictating or even suggesting to the Stockport
Corporation
what
that
Corporation
should
do in
the
present case.
That
is entirely a
matter
for
them
and
I do
not
want
to be
understood
as in any way seeking to influence
their
decision;
but
it may be
that
when they have had time to consider
the
matter
and
obtain such
advice as
they
require, they will
think
that
this case does afford a
desirable
opportunity
of seeking to clear up certain very grave
and
very practical difficulties which in my
judgment
are presented to
the
Police of this
country
as a result of
what
was said by
their
lordships
in
the
Court
of Appeal in the case of Ledwith against Roberts.
Now,
the
facts of this case as I find
them
to be can be
shortly
stated.
About
noon on
the
rst
August last year ayoung
woman
named
Mrs. Bushby was sitting on a deck chair in
the
garden
of
her
house at NO.4-Clarence Road,
Heaton
Moor, Stockport. I
think
it is necessary to mention
that
she is a good-looking
young
woman.
Sitting
there
she saw a
man
ride past on a bicycle.
She
has been able
to give,
both
to me here
and
to others at
the
time, a fairly
complete
description of
that
man, at any rate as regards his clothing,
that
he
was
de
ut 30 years of zge, slim build, pale complexion,
thin
features,
three
upper
teeth
missing,
dressedin
akhaki
shirt,
dirty grey flannel
trousers,
and
riding apedal bicycle.
She
says
the
man
rode
up
and
down in
front
of
her
several times,
that
he was riding with only his
left
hand
on
the
handle-bar
and
that
his
other
hand
was in his
trousers'
pocket
and
that
he was making
rapid
movements
with
it,' no
doubt
of an
indecent
character.
She
says
that
he was
staring
very
hard
at
her
and
that
the
reason why she noticed. he
had
some
teeth
missing
was because he was
grinning
so
much
at her.
She
got extremely
upset
by this,
and
she
did
two things.
First
of all, seeing
her
neighbour's
little boy playing in
the
garden
she asked .him to fetch his,
mother,
Mrs. Burchall,
who
lived next door at No. 2Clarence Road.
Secondly
she.
shouted
out
to
the
man
to clear off, or words to
that
effect,
what
did
he
want
th~re,
to
which
he
~ade
no reply.
M~s.
B~~chall
being
summoned
arrived
from
next
door,
and
on Mrs. Bushby telling
her
what
had
occurred, she says she
went
to
the
corner of
the
road
and
saw
the
~an
riding away, and:
that
he
kept
turning
round
and
she
noticed
that
he was fumbling
with
the
front
of his trousers.
Mrs. Bushby in giving
her
evidence said here
that
the,
man
To continue reading
Request your trial