Halford v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary

On an application for permission to appeal, permission should be granted where a proposed ground has a real prospect of success. Challenges concerning the withdrawal of malice from a jury and the scope and factual basis of qualified privilege met that threshold. Although an Article 6 fair-trial ground appeared weaker, permission could be granted without limitation of grounds, leaving the applicant to decide which grounds to pursue.

The applicant brought claims in libel, slander and malicious falsehood concerning communications by a police sergeant to his employers during an investigation into an alleged assault. At trial, the judge ruled that the communications were protected by qualified privilege and withdrew malice from the jury for lack of sufficient evidence. Judgment was entered for the defendants.

The applicant sought permission to appeal, alleging errors concerning the jury’s function, qualified privilege, and the fairness of the trial under Article 6. The central question was whether the proposed grounds had sufficient prospects to justify permission.

1. Permission threshold. The court was satisfied from the applicant’s detailed skeleton arguments that the proposed grounds concerning malice and qualified privilege had a real prospect of success. Permission was therefore justified on those grounds.
2. Malice and the jury. The principal proposed ground alleged that the trial judge had withdrawn the issue of malice from the jury and had thereby assumed the function of the fact-finding tribunal. The court considered that challenge sufficiently arguable for permission, but did not determine whether the ruling was ultimately correct.
3. Qualified privilege. The applicant also challenged the judge’s findings of fact and the breadth of the occasion of qualified privilege. The court considered that those arguments also had a real prospect of success. Their merits remained for the appeal.
4. Article 6 ground. The court expressed doubts about the prospects of the ground alleging denial of a fair trial. That ground concerned late amendments to the defence and oral evidence from witnesses who had not provided witness statements. The court considered the first two grounds stronger and warned that pursuing the Article 6 ground might cause additional time and expense.
5. Order. On reflection, permission to appeal was granted without limitation of grounds. The applicant’s advisers were left to decide how far to pursue the weaker grounds. Application allowed.

1. Trial: The action was unsuccessful. His Honour Judge Richard Walker entered judgment for the defendants after ruling on qualified privilege and withdrawing malice from the jury.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was granted without limitation of grounds. The court did not determine the merits of the proposed appeal.