Farrell v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

A simple caution may properly be given where the suspect makes a clear and reliable admission of an offence, even though the suspect disputes more serious allegations arising from the same incident. An admission of a single push may amount to common assault by battery. The caution relates to the admitted offence and does not signify acceptance of additional allegations made by other witnesses. A speculative or insufficient suggestion of self-defence does not displace an otherwise clear admission. The court may refuse judicial review where the challenge to the caution is groundless; not every procedural defect in the cautioning process necessarily justifies intervention.

The claimant, a university student, admitted during police interview that she had pushed another student while the student was sitting on a chair. She denied causing the more serious injuries alleged by other witnesses. The police treated the admission as common assault by battery and issued a simple caution under Home Office Circular 30/2005 rather than prosecuting her on the wider allegations.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the interview did not contain a sufficiently clear and reliable admission and suggesting that subsequent events might have involved self-defence. The central issue was whether the admitted conduct satisfied the criteria for a simple caution.

1. The application for judicial review failed and the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the claimant had made a clear and reliable admission of pushing the victim. The admission was sufficient to establish common assault by battery, although at the lower end of seriousness.
2. The police were entitled to act on the admitted offence rather than on disputed allegations that the claimant had used further violence or caused more serious injuries. The caution therefore related only to the admitted push and did not connote acceptance of the additional accounts given by other witnesses.
3. The claimant’s suggestion of self-defence did not undermine the admission. In light of her admission that she initiated the physical incident, the suggested material was insufficient to amount to an assertion of self-defence capable of overriding the admission.
4. The court also noted the guidance in R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis ex p Thompson [1997] 1 WLR 1519 that not every procedural breach in the cautioning system would necessarily result in a successful court challenge. In any event, the present challenge was wholly groundless.
5. The claimant was publicly funded. No order for the defendant’s costs was made, subject to assessment of publicly funded costs.

The judgment does not state the details of any earlier decision. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant’s challenge to the caution.