The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police v Robert Carroll
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Terence Etherton MR,Lord Justice Hickinbottom,Mr Justice Turner |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Civ 1992 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2015/2624 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 1992
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
Lord Justice Hickinbottom
and
Mr Justice Turner
Case No: B3/2015/2624
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER
HHJ Armitage QC
3YS57557
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ian Skelt (instructed by GMP Legal Services) for the Appellant
Simon Anderson (instructed by Slater and Gordon LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 22 November 2017
Judgment Approved
This is an appeal from the order made on 15 July 2015 by His Honour Judge Armitage QC in the county court at Manchester on a preliminary issue. The order declared that the claim for the personal injuries identified in the amended Particulars of Claim had been brought within three years after the claimant's date of knowledge for the purposes of sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 (" LA 1980") and is not barred.
In the proceedings the respondent (who I shall refer to as "the claimant"), a former police officer in the Greater Manchester Police, claims damages from the appellant (who I shall refer to as "the defendant"), the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police. In very broad terms, the essence of the claim is that, due to the negligence and breaches of regulations by those for whom the defendant is vicariously liable, the claimant became addicted to heroin and has suffered consequential psychiatric and other harm due to his training for, and execution of, undercover police activity posing as a drug user to make test purchases.
It is now conceded by the claimant that the Judge was wrong to find that the proceedings were commenced within three years after the claimant's date of knowledge for the purposes of LA 1980 ss. 11 and 14. The claimant continues to oppose the appeal, however, on the ground that the Judge was entitled to conclude, in the alternative, as he did, that he should exercise his discretion under LA 1980 s.33 to disapply the time limit in section 11.
The statutory provisions
LA ss. 11, 14 and 33, so far as relevant, are set out in the appendix to this judgment.
Report of Dr Brendan T. Monteiro
The trigger, or one of the triggers, for the commencement of the proceedings was a report on the claimant prepared by Dr Brendan T Monteiro, a consultant psychiatrist, dated 30 September 2013. He had examined the claimant on 30 August 2013 and 20 September 2013. In the report Dr Monteiro said the following, among other things.
"12.3 Mr Carroll describes symptoms and features of Harmful Use of Opioids as described in F11.1 of ICD-10 … The Heroin Addiction has been present for a number of years and according to his account, commenced after he was exposed to Heroin, during a Police training day at Sedgley Park Police Training Centre in approximately 2008/2009.
12.3.1 The important issue to be recognised by the Court is that Mr Carroll was placed in a vulnerable position of having to adopt the persona and role of a drug user/dealer to fulfil his job requirements as an undercover Police Officer. I have not seen any information to show that he was screened for this role prior to his appointment, to consider whether he had the psychological and personality attributes to fulfil the role, without suffering psychological and personality problems. Gradually as his career as an undercover Police Officer unfolded, he became more embedded and entrenched into the drug sub-culture, both in an official role as ' Lee Taylor', though he also began to abuse this role because of his need to obtain Heroin and often assumed the identity of ' Lee Taylor' to procure Heroin for himself, when he was not on duty. The process of working as an undercover officer and its requirements, have proved stressful for Mr Carroll.
…
12.6 Causation The account Mr Carroll and his wife give shows that the main cause for his Heroin misuse is related to his exposure to the substance and situational factors related to performing the role of ' Lee Taylor', a Heroin User/Dealer as an undercover Police Officer. This issue has been described at length in the body of this report.
12.6.1 The causation of the Depressive Episode is multi-factorial and the following issues need to be taken into consideration.
• Mr Carroll found himself in a very difficult predicament; he stated that he did not receive help or support from the Police Force. He was frequently placed in a situation of risk and danger, being an undercover Police Officer and having to act as a Drug User/Dealer (' Lee Taylor'). He claims that he frequently took on the persona of ' Lee Taylor' in order to successfully fulfil his responsibilities. He had been commended for his actions as an undercover Officer, though he was not appreciated by [the undercover unit] and in particular, a Sergeant who was impatient and wanted immediate results (6.9). He felt undermined and humiliated, which led to poor self-esteem, lowering of self-confidence and loss of self-belief and self-worth. He was also criticised by seniors at Oldham Police Station … His ability to function within the Police Force was seriously compromised; he is facing criminal charges in the Crown Court and is convinced that he will not be able to return to the Police Force, whatever the outcome of the Court case … [H]e is concerned about family finances and has repeated suicidal thoughts; he believes that if he acts on these thoughts, it will resolve the financial matters and his family will receive an Insurance pay out after his death.
• The repeated use of Heroin and Opiates is likely to have contributed to Depressive symptoms and episodes. While in the short-term he gets a "buzz" out of the use of the substance, in the longer term he describes lethargy, lack of interest, lack of motivation and drive, anhedonia and a complete feeling of detachment from his family (10.4).
• …
• There is no information to show that Mr Carroll had personality vulnerabilities to developing episodes of Depression, prior to 2008. However, the interaction between his need to bring out negative aspects of his personality to function as a successful undercover Police Officer, could have contributed to episodes of Depression."
The proceedings
The claim form was issued on 4 November 2013. In broad terms, the claim is that the defendant is liable in damages for the injury, loss and damage suffered by the claimant as a result of the negligence and breach of the following regulations by those for whom the defendant (which expression I use to include his predecessors in the same role) was vicariously liable: The Management of Health and Welfare Regulations 1999, The Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 and The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992 (together "the regulations"). The primary pleaded injury was addiction to heroin, as a consequence of which the claimant suffered from the symptoms of the opioid use and depression.
So far as relevant to this appeal, the alleged circumstances giving rise to that liability set out in the amended Particulars of Claim dated 25 March 2015 are as follows.
At about the end of 2007 or the beginning of 2008 the defendant established a new team to carry out undercover drug investigations. The roles of police officers seconded to the new unit included working undercover and posing as a drug user to make test purchases. The claimant joined the undercover unit in about spring 200In about February 2009 he was instructed to pose as a drug user on the Wythenshawe Estate ("the Estate") so as to identify drug dealers on the Estate and make test purchases of drugs from them. During the course of his undercover work on the Estate, the claimant adopted the identity of Lee Taylor. From time to time when acting as Lee Taylor the claimant had to "kite" heroin and cocaine (that is to say, to place the bag of heroin or cocaine which he had purchased in his mouth when transporting it). He felt strange and unwell after doing so. He believes that ingesting small quantities of drugs whilst kiting and being exposed to drugs smoked in his presence by users made him particularly susceptible to later drug addiction.
On 6 May 2009 the claimant was instructed to attend a training day at Sedgely Hall. The door and windows of the room, in which the training session took place, were closed. A large block of heroin was handed around the room. The claimant and other participants handled and were encouraged to smell it. As a result, the claimant's hands became smeared with heroin dust which he wiped on his trousers. The claimant and the other participants were also each given a piece of aluminium foil on which a quantity of heroin was placed, and they were then encouraged to use a cigarette lighter on the underside of the foil and to run the lighter underneath the line of heroin powder, causing the heroin to burn and give off a vapour. As a result of the exercise, the claimant inhaled the heroin vapour from the quantity which he had burned, and the heroin vapour which was in the atmosphere in the room generally as a result of other officers performing the same exercise.
Following the training day, the claimant started to purchase and take heroin and became a heroin addict.
The claimant left the undercover unit and returned to normal duties at about the beginning of November 2009. He was not the subject of any detailed de-briefing process nor was he offered counselling and support after the training day at Sedgley Park, on completing his role as undercover officer in the Estate, or on leaving the undercover unit.
From September 2009 until January 2012 the claimant sought help with his drug addiction from Lifeline Kirklees ("Lifeline"), a local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Juanita Tyers (widow and executrix of the estate of George Tyers deceased) v Aegis Defence Services (BVI) Ltd
...principles by which the discretion is to be exercised, as authoritatively set out in Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2017] EWCA Civ 1992; [2018] 4 WLR 32 (see further paragraph 66 below). She submitted that the discretion under s.33 is unfettered and proportionality is a ......
-
Peter John Sebastian Murray v Father Martin Devenish (Provincial Superior of the London Province of the Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Sued on his own behalf and as a representative of all other members of the unincorporated association known as the Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus)
...be applied when considering the court's powers under Limitation Act 1980 s.33 have been reviewed most conveniently in Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2017] EWCA Civ at [42]. Both parties urged me to apply those principles and I do. 73 From the other authorities which......
-
David Ellis v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust
...and comprehensively reviewed by the Court of Appeal in the case of The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police v Carroll [2017] EWCA Civ 1992. The judgment of the Court was delivered by The Master of the Rolls and at paragraph 42 of his judgment he summarised the general principles to......
-
Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49
...case does not merit further consumption of judicial resources”). [3] E.g., Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police v. Carroll, [2017] EWCA Civ 1992, ¶ 60 per Sir Terence Etherton M.R. (“It cannot be said that the claim is so weak or inherently implausible that it could be ... dismissed......
-
Sports Law Update: TVZ V Manchester City Football Club [2022] EWHC 7 (QB) (Part 2 Of 2)
...The cogency of the evidence (S. 33(3)(b)). The leading authority on S. 33(1) is Carroll v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2017] EWCA Civ 1992 at [42]. There are two important points to note from this The essence of the proper exercise of judicial discretion is a balance of pre......