Lee v Chief Constable of Essex Police

A court may quash a police caution only in an exceptional case. The usual indicators are a clear breach of the applicable guidance, coupled with a significant and substantial failure that undermines the caution. Police officers retain a wide margin of appreciation when deciding whether the preconditions for a caution are satisfied. Even where guidance has been breached, the court retains a discretion whether to intervene. Substantial compliance may suffice where the suspect understood the significant consequences of the caution and gave informed consent. A failure to provide every detail or to use the prescribed form will not necessarily justify quashing the caution.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Chief Constable’s refusal to quash a caution administered after he admitted possessing indecent images of children. The police had applied superseded Home Office guidance rather than Home Office Circular No 16/2008. The Independent Police Complaints Commission upheld the complaint concerning that error. The central issues were whether the police had substantially complied with the 2008 circular, whether the claimant had been pressured or induced to confess or accept a caution, and whether the failures justified quashing the caution.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The refusal to quash the caution was neither unlawful nor unreasonable.
2. The court’s jurisdiction to quash a caution is exceptional. It arises where the caution was administered in clear breach of the relevant Home Office guidance, but the court retains a discretion not to interfere. Police officers must have a wide margin of appreciation in assessing the circumstances and whether the preconditions for a caution are met.
3. The relevant question was compliance with Home Office Circular No 16/2008, not the superseded 2005 circular. The officers’ ignorance of the 2008 circular did not itself determine the application. The court assessed the extent and significance of the actual departures from it.
4. The reference to a possible caution before the interview did not amount to pressure or inducement. The possibility was conveyed to the claimant’s representative, it was not repeated during the interview, and the claimant’s acceptance of the caution followed his admission.
5. The claimant received written and oral information covering the significant consequences of a caution, including disclosure, civil proceedings, employment consequences and registration under Part II of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The omission of some details in the 2008 form, including possible difficulties entering or residing in certain countries, was not a significant and substantial failure. The absence of the claimant’s signature on the information form and the failure to provide a distinct cooling-off period likewise did not justify intervention.
6. Overall, the police had substantially complied with the circular. The claimant understood the significant implications of accepting the caution and gave informed consent. The claimant was ordered to pay £2,500 towards the defendant’s costs. Permission to appeal was refused.