Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police v Heaven

The Court of Appeal dismissed the police appeal against a jury verdict that officers had entered the claimant's home unlawfully, falsely imprisoned him and maliciously prosecuted him.

The court held that inconsistent-seeming jury answers were not legally irreconcilable where the jury could accept lack of lawful cause for arrest and malicious prosecution while rejecting parts of the claimant's account of physical assault. Admission of a neighbour's statements under the Civil Evidence Act 1968 was within judicial discretion where the judge warned the jury about their limited weight.

The claimant was visited in the early hours by police searching for his son. A struggle occurred. The claimant was arrested, taken to custody and later charged; at the Crown Court no evidence was called and he was bound over.

He sued the Chief Constable in tort for trespass, assault, false arrest (false imprisonment) and malicious prosecution. At trial a jury answered a schedule of questions that found unlawful entry, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution but not several alleged assaults.

The Recorder entered judgment for the claimant and awarded costs, granting the Chief Constable permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal from the Recorder's decision and the jury verdicts.

1. Outcome: Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal (Sedley LJ and Sir Christopher Slade) upheld the jury verdicts for trespass, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. (Order: Appeal dismissed.)
2. Consistency of verdicts: The court held that the jury's findings were not legally inconsistent. The jury could find the entry and arrest unjustified and yet reject particular allegations of assault. That did not render the overall verdicts incomprehensible. (See paras [7], [18], [20].)
3. Admissibility under the Civil Evidence Act 1968: The Recorder acted within his discretion in admitting an absent neighbour's statement and manuscript letter. The judge warned the jury to give them limited weight. The ruling was innocuous and not an error of principle. (See paras [12]–[13].)
4. Trial conduct: The court rejected complaints about counsel's geometric argument about the hallway, a brief demonstration attempt, and an opening reference to the disbanded Serious Crime Squad. None produced prejudice requiring reversal. (See paras [9]–[11], [14]–[15].)
5. Malicious prosecution: There was sufficient evidence to put malicious prosecution to the jury. The jury were properly directed that they must be satisfied that the officer did not genuinely believe his account to the custody sergeant. Their finding of lack of genuine belief was consistent with the verdicts on unlawful entry and false imprisonment. (See paras [16]–[18].)
6. Perversity review: The court found no perversity in the jury's conclusions. Divergent and imperfect recollections after several years did not make the conclusions perverse. (See paras [19]–[20].)
7. Costs: The Recorder had failed to invite submissions before ordering the Chief Constable to pay two thirds of the claimant's costs. The Court of Appeal substituted its own exercise of discretion. It ordered that the claimant keep all his costs against the Chief Constable, but reduced recoverable legal aid taxation by excluding costs attributable to an unnecessary expert witness. The claimant was awarded costs in this court, with legal aid taxation in respect of those costs. (See paras [22]–[23].)

• Crown Court (Wolverhampton Crown Court): Trial before Mr Recorder Glancy QC. Jury returned verdicts finding unlawful entry, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution; judgment entered for claimant.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal by Chief Constable dismissed; costs order reviewed and varied by the court.