Cleveland Police v Watson

Permission to appeal may be granted where the authorities leave an important evidential question requiring clarification. In civil proceedings, cross-examination about previous convictions is admissible only so far as it is relevant to the witness’s credibility, subject to statutory restrictions and the court’s control of irrelevant evidence. The nature of the offence is not necessarily decisive; the plea and whether the witness was disbelieved may be at least as relevant, particularly where the offence does not involve dishonesty. In assessing damages under several heads, the jury should consider the totality of the award. The guidance in Thompson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner provides a useful check, although exceptional cases may justify a total exceeding the suggested limit.

The Chief Constable appealed from a jury judgment in the Middlesbrough County Court awarding Darren Watson £21,500 for assault, malicious prosecution, aggravated damages and exemplary damages. The claim arose from an alleged assault in police custody and a subsequent prosecution for assaulting police officers, which was not proceeded with.

The proposed appeal concerned the exclusion of cross-examination about some of the claimant’s previous convictions and the judge’s directions on the overall assessment of damages. The court also recorded that a separate ground concerning malicious prosecution was not pursued. The central issue was whether these matters raised points requiring consideration by the Court of Appeal.

1. Permission granted. The application for permission to appeal was allowed on the grounds concerning cross-examination about previous convictions and the quantification of damages.
2. Previous convictions may be independently proved where denied under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865. Their permitted use is to attack credibility. Evidence which is irrelevant to credibility must be excluded.
3. Where convictions are spent, sections 4(1) and 7(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 apply. Cross-examination may be allowed only where justice cannot be done without admitting the evidence.
4. The authorities indicated that cross-examination in civil proceedings could extend beyond offences of dishonesty, subject to statutory limits and the exclusion of irrelevant evidence. However, the court considered the issue sufficiently important to merit clarification. Lady Justice Hale observed that the trial judge’s exclusion of convictions for driving while disqualified, violence and public disorder might be regarded as sensible, since admitting them could require a warning that they bore on credibility rather than propensity.
5. Sir Anthony Evans added that the plea in the earlier criminal proceedings, and whether the defendant was disbelieved after denying the offence, might be at least as relevant to credibility as the nature of the offence itself, unless the offence involved dishonesty.
6. As to damages, the jury had been directed by reference to separate heads but had not specifically been directed to review the totality. The court considered that the useful check identified in Thompson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner should be considered in that context. The total may exceed the suggested limit in an unusual case, but the jury should be able to assess the overall award.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from the Middlesbrough County Court, permission to appeal was allowed on two grounds. The judgment under appeal was described as a jury award of £21,500, but its citation was not stated in the judgment.