Abraham v Comr of Police of the Metropolis

A formal police caution is not equivalent to a criminal conviction for the rule against collateral attack on a subsisting judgment. It is not the decision of a court, so a claimant may challenge the truth of the admission underlying it. The right to seek redress is not absolute, but should not be lightly curtailed. An admission will not found estoppel by representation where it was contributed to by a breach of duty by the party relying on it. An unlawful arrest and false account may therefore prevent the police from relying on an admission made during cautioning to strike out a civil claim.

Sharon Abraham brought a claim against the Commissioner of Police for false imprisonment and assault. She had been arrested after an incident involving a police officer and later accepted a formal caution after receiving advice from a duty solicitor. The Commissioner relied on her admission of the police account, contending that the civil claim was an abuse of process or that summary judgment should be entered.

The Central London County Court struck out the claim, treating the formal caution as closely analogous to a criminal conviction. The appeal concerned whether the caution engaged the rule against collateral attack and whether the admission created an estoppel preventing the claim from proceeding.

1. Appeal allowed. The claim was not barred by the public-policy rule against collateral attack on a subsisting judgment. Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands [1982] AC 529 and Saif Ali v Sidney Mitchel & Co [1988] AC 198, 222, concerned decisions of courts of justice. A formal caution is not brought about by a court decision. Challenging the truth of the admission underlying it is therefore not an attack on a subsisting judgment of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
2. The caution’s similarities to a conviction did not alter that conclusion. A conviction based on a guilty plea is subject to appellate review, whereas a formal caution may be challenged only by judicial review. The latter remedy was accepted to be inadequate on the assumed facts.
3. Public policy and fairness favoured allowing the claim to proceed. The right to seek redress in the courts, recognised in common law and by Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights, may be limited in appropriate circumstances but should not be lightly curtailed. Osman v United Kingdom [1999] 1 FLR 193 was relied on in that context.
4. The admission did not create an estoppel by representation. The court accepted the principle stated in Customs & Excise v Hebden Ltd [1953] 2 Lloyds Reports 382, 397, that a representation loses effect as an estoppel where its making was contributed to by a breach of duty by the person seeking to rely on it. On the assumed facts, the arrest was unlawful, the police account was false, and the admission was contributed to by that conduct.
5. The separate minor assault claim should also proceed because it involved the same facts and would add no material time or cost. The case was remitted for trial. Costs of the appeal and the strike-out and summary-judgment applications were awarded to the appellant; preparation costs were costs in the trial. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Allowed the appeal, remitted the case for trial, made costs orders and refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
2. Central London County Court His Honour Judge Simon Goldstein struck out the claim, treating the formal caution as closely analogous to a criminal conviction.