Aru, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

A formal police caution may be quashed where the prescribed cautioning rules are breached. The rules require sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, a clear admission of the offence, and informed consent. Compliance with the procedure at the time of administering the caution does not conclude the inquiry if earlier improper conduct may have induced an admission contrary to the offender’s true belief. The claimant bears the burden of proving the alleged improper conduct to the requisite standard. Serious allegations of deliberate wrongdoing are relevant when assessing the evidence. Where the claimant fails to establish that improper conduct caused the admission and caution, the judicial review claim fails.

The claimant sought judicial review of a police caution for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. He alleged that police officers had subjected him to improper treatment and had pressured him to admit the offence and accept a caution. The defendant accepted that, if those allegations were proved, the caution should be quashed.

The court heard disputed oral evidence, including evidence from the arresting officers and the custody sergeant, and permitted cross-examination. The central issue was whether the claimant had proved that improper conduct caused him to make an admission contrary to his true belief and thereby invalidated the caution.

1. The application was dismissed. It was established that a caution can be quashed where the cautioning rules are breached, and deliberate or flagrant breach is not required before judicial intervention. The relevant rules required sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, an admission of the offence, and informed consent after the significance of the caution had been explained.
2. The custody sergeant was accepted as a straightforward and reliable witness. The court found that he would have followed the proper procedure, explained the consequences of the caution, obtained an admission before administering it, and acted properly. The signed caution form and custody documentation supported that conclusion.
3. Proper compliance by the custody sergeant did not by itself resolve the claim. The court also had to consider whether earlier improper conduct by the arresting officers had induced the claimant to admit an offence which he did not genuinely believe he had committed.
4. The claimant did not prove, to the requisite standard, that the alleged strip search or the alleged visit and threat by Constable Anderson had occurred. The late notebook entries were poor practice, and the wording of the MG5 case summary was unsatisfactory, but neither established the alleged misconduct. The completed documents, the claimant’s signatures, and the absence of any contemporaneous complaint to the custody sergeant also weighed against the claim.
5. The ordinary costs order was made, with the question whether costs could later be recovered from any damages or costs in separate proceedings left open for 21 days.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. The judgment records that permission had been granted by Sir Richard Tucker and that Stanley Burnton J had permitted cross-examination of relevant witnesses.