Purchase v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

A jury verdict is not perverse merely because it accepts parts of competing accounts. A jury may find that an arrest was initiated in response to the claimant’s conduct but that excessive force was later used, provided the answers are logically consistent. Appellate interference with a trial judge’s costs discretion is unwarranted where relevant matters were considered and the order fell within the permissible range.

The Chief Constable sought permission to appeal from an order made by Eady J after a jury trial. The claimant succeeded in assault and battery, receiving damages of £19,803.30 inclusive of interest and 75 per cent of his costs. Claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution failed. The proposed appeal challenged the jury’s answers as perverse and inconsistent, and challenged the costs order. The central issues were whether the verdicts could stand and whether the exercise of costs discretion disclosed grounds for appellate intervention.

Disposition. Lord Justice Kay gave the reasons, and Lord Justice Mummery agreed. The application for permission to appeal was refused on both grounds.

1. Jury answers. The applicable test, stated in Abbassy and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1991] 1 WLR 385 at 400, is whether a necessary inconsistency shows that the jury proceeded on a false approach or was otherwise unreliable so as to justify a retrial.
2. A jury need not accept all of one side’s evidence or reject it entirely. It may conclude that the truth lies between competing accounts. In this case, the jury could accept that the claimant had behaved abusively and that the Inspector had gone to arrest him, while finding that the arrest was later carried out unlawfully and with excessive force. The answers that the Inspector and Sergeant had jumped on the claimant’s back were therefore not logically inconsistent with the finding that an arrest was being attempted. The first ground was not arguable.
3. Costs. The costs order was a matter for the trial judge’s discretion. Eady J had considered the additional length of the jury trial, the failure of the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims, and the unsuccessful substantial claim for special damages. The order requiring payment of 75 per cent of the claimant’s costs fell within the proper range of discretion. There was no realistic prospect of appellate interference.

Order: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 682, the court refused the Chief Constable’s application for permission to appeal.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Eady J, sitting with a jury, awarded the claimant £19,803.30 inclusive of interest for assault and battery and ordered payment of 75 per cent of his costs. The claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution failed.