Case

Abraham v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2001] 1 WLR 1257

(2000) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - Mantell LJ, Kay LJ - 08.12.00

Police Powers - False imprisonment - Formal caution - Strike out - Claimant accepting formal caution based on false account of incident by police - Formal caution was not bar to civil action - CPR rr 3.4(2), 24.2 - European Convention on Human Rights Arts 6(1), 13

FACTS
For the purposes of a striking out application, the following facts were assumed. The claimant was arrested for a public order offence. She was detained at the police station and released after accepting a formal caution in respect of the offence. This followed advice from her solicitor that any claim she might have would not be prejudiced by acceptance of a formal caution. In the course of accepting the formal caution she admitted a version of facts as told by the arresting officer which represented a gross exaggeration of the incident which had led to her arrest. She subsequently brought an action against the police for assault and false imprisonment. The defendant applied to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR r 3.4(2) or alternatively for summary judgment under CPR r 24.2 on the basis that the claimant had admitted the police version of events which would have justified the arrest. On 7 April 2000 HHJ Goldstein struck out the claim. The claimant appealed.

ISSUES
(1) Whether acceptance of a formal caution was a bar to a civil action against the police as an abuse of process.
(2) Whether acceptance of a formal caution operated as a bar to a civil action against the police by way of an equitable estoppel.

HELD (allowing the appeal)
(1) The civil proceedings were not an abuse of process. Although a formal caution shared some characteristics with a criminal conviction, it was not the same. The fundamental difference lay in the fact that it was not brought about by any decision of a court of justice. Consequently, any attack upon the admission of guilt was not an attack upon “the correctness of a subsisting judgment of a court of trial” (see Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 and Saif Ali v Sidney Mitchel and Co [1988] AC 198). Furthermore, the same public policy considerations as applied to a plea of guilty before a court of trial did not apply to an admission of guilt precedent to the administration of a formal caution: an admission to a police officer did not involve an attack on a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction; the plea of guilty entered in a criminal court was open to public view and scrutiny and was subject to the supervision of a magistrate or judge; a conviction based upon a plea of guilty was reviewable on appeal if entered on a false basis or incorrect advice whereas the only challenge to a formal caution lay by way of judicial review. In addition, public policy dictated that those who had suffered a wrong should have the right to seek redress in the courts. That such right should not be lightly curtailed was recognised both by the common law and Arts 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see Osman v United Kingdom [1999] FLR 193).
(2) The conditions of estoppel by representation had not been made good. The admission or representation had been “deprived of any effect as an estoppel” (see para 1045 of vol 16 of Halsbury’s Laws ed 4 reproducing the principle in Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Hebden Ltd [1953] Lloyd’s Rep 382). The claimant, a person of previous good character, had been brought to the police station under arrest on a false pretext. She would have been anxious about her two children from whom perforce she had been separated on arrest. Her admission had been to an account of events which both she and the arresting officer knew to be false. Her admission had been contributed to, if not caused, by the unlawful arrest and the false recounting of events by the arresting officer, who had been throughout the defendant’s servant.

Statutes
Public Order Act 1986 s 5

Court Rules
CPR Part 3
CPR Part 24

International Conventions
European Convention on The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 Arts 6 and 13

Authorities
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Hebden Ltd [1953] Lloyd’s Rep 382
Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529
Osman v United Kingdom [1999] 1 FLR 193
R v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis ex p P [1996] 160 JP 367
R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex p Thompson [1997] 1 WLR 1519
R v David Martin (The Times 05.01.00)
Vye (1993) Cr App R 134
Saif Ali v Sidney Mitchel & Co [1988] AC 198

Textbooks, Articles and Reports
Halsbury’s Laws ed 4 vol 16
Home Office Circular No14/85
May, R, HHJ [1997] Crim LR 491

Counsel
Powell, G - Respondent/Defendant