Lawrence v O'Byrne

A criminal acquittal or successful appeal does not, without more, create an estoppel in later civil proceedings where the parties and legal contexts differ. The civil court must consider abuse of process separately. Relitigation is not abusive merely because related facts were examined criminally, particularly where an individual’s alleged conduct requires proper civil adjudication and appeal rights are available. A defendant should not be deprived of the opportunity to defend merely because success may be difficult. The relevant threshold is whether there is no reasonable prospect of defending the claim, or whether the evidence indicates inevitable failure.

The claimant brought civil proceedings against the Chief Constable arising from his arrest and the use of CS gas by a police constable. The claims included assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and negligent permitting of the use of a weapon alleged to fall within the Firearms Act 1968 and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996.

Following related criminal proceedings, the Luton Crown Court allowed the claimant’s appeal on 20 August 1998, finding that there was no case to answer. On 10 December 2001, the Reading County Court ordered that the defendant could contend that the arrest and use of force were lawful, and restricted reliance on the Crown Court judgment. The claimant sought permission to appeal, arguing estoppel, abuse of process and absence of any reasonable prospect that the defence would succeed.

1. Application dismissed. There was no reasonable prospect of the Court of Appeal interfering with the County Court’s order.
2. Estoppel did not prevent the defendant from contending that the arrest was lawful. The criminal proceedings were not properly characterised as proceedings between the claimant and the Chief Constable. The civil defendant had to answer issues in a different legal and procedural context from the prosecutor in the criminal trial. There was therefore no justification for applying estoppel.
3. The absence of estoppel did not determine the separate question of abuse of process. There was no abuse of process on the facts. Although the civil claim was brought against the Chief Constable, it was essentially based on the allegedly unlawful conduct of the police constable. The officer had been involved in the criminal proceedings but was entitled to have the claim properly considered in civil proceedings, where his interests could be defended and an appeal was available. The employer was likewise entitled to have the allegation against the employed officer properly adjudicated.
4. The claimant relied on the lawfulness-of-arrest test identified in Bibby v The Chief Constable of Essex [1994] JPR 164 at page 297 and argued that the evidence made failure inevitable. The court rejected that submission. The evidence might make the defence difficult, but it did not show that the officer would inevitably fail or had no reasonable prospect of defending the claim. The defendant should therefore retain the opportunity to answer the allegations.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 24 January 2002, Lord Justice Latham dismissed the application for permission to appeal.
• Reading County Court — On 10 December 2001, His Honour Judge McIntyre permitted the defendant to argue that the arrest and use of force were lawful and limited reliance on the Crown Court judgment.
• Luton Crown Court — On 20 August 1998, the claimant’s appeal in the related criminal proceedings was allowed after the court concluded that there was no case to answer.