Roche v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

A perfected county court order does not prevent the Court of Appeal from considering a later judgment which supplies further reasons without altering that order. The later reasons may be considered where they address an alleged omission and avoid an artificial and costly remittal.

An arrest under section 24(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act requires an actual suspicion of an arrestable offence supported by reasonable grounds. A distinct allegation of reckless assault cannot rescue an arrest presented and tried as one based on deliberate assault where neither the necessary suspicion nor reasonable grounds existed.

Exceptionally, an appellate court may increase damages for psychiatric injury where the original award was expressly contingent on the expected duration of litigation and an undisputed appellate delay prolonged the illness.

The claimant obtained judgment in Manchester County Court for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and psychiatric injury arising from his arrest and prosecution after a confrontation with police officers. The judge found that he had not deliberately assaulted the officers with his vehicle and that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for suspecting such an assault.

After making a perfected liability order, the judge delivered a second judgment addressing whether the claimant had committed, or could reasonably have been suspected of committing, a reckless assault. He again found for the claimant. The Chief Constable appealed, principally contending that the second judgment should be disregarded and that the first judgment had not adequately addressed recklessness.

The claimant cross-appealed concerning the £7,500 awarded for psychiatric injury, which had been assessed on the expectation that his condition would resolve after the litigation ended.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge had rejected both the alleged deliberate assaults and the contention that the police had reasonable grounds to suspect such assaults. The police case at trial had been based on actual and deliberate assault rather than a suspicion of recklessness. The judge's second judgment nevertheless addressed recklessness and conclusively found that the claimant had committed no reckless assault and that the arresting officer neither held a relevant suspicion supported by reasonable grounds nor had reasonable grounds for one.

2. Section 70 of the County Courts Act 1984 made the perfected county court order final between the parties. It did not prevent the Court of Appeal from considering the second judgment. That judgment did not alter the order but supplied further reasons supporting it by addressing contentions which had not previously been before the judge. Disregarding those reasons and remitting the same questions would have been artificial. The Court of Appeal could itself have remitted the case for further findings under the jurisdiction recognised in English v Emery Reimbold and could therefore take account of findings already properly made.

3. A claimant alleging malicious prosecution must prove both absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice. The trial judge did not determine malice separately. The omission resulted from the way the case had been presented, was not pursued when the parties returned before the judge, and was not a permitted ground of appeal. The Court of Appeal therefore declined to remit that issue.

4. Cross-appeal allowed. The psychiatric injury award had been agreed on the assumption that the recognised disorder would resolve within months after the litigation. The appeal prolonged the litigation, and therefore the anticipated illness, by a further 14 months. Although there was no further medical examination and no error in the original assessment, the known circumstances established that the award had become too low. As remittal would have been disproportionate and the parties did not significantly dispute the consequences or additional sum, the award was increased from £7,500 to £10,000. The court emphasised that this unusual order was not to be treated as a general precedent.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2005] EWCA Civ 1454, unanimously dismissed the Chief Constable's appeal and allowed the claimant's cross-appeal by increasing psychiatric injury damages from £7,500 to £10,000.
• Manchester County Court: His Honour Judge Tetlow gave judgment for the claimant on liability in April 2004. In a further judgment on 10 June 2004, he found that the claimant had committed no reckless assault and that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect one.