Bento v The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police

In a libel action, allegations pleaded in aggravation of damages should be struck out where investigating them would substantially distract from the real issues and add little, if anything, to any likely award. The court must manage the case proportionately, particularly where the same matters are being examined through a more appropriate statutory complaints process. A claimant remains entitled to give evidence about his feelings in response to publication. Whether words concerning the thoroughness or ethical quality of an investigation are relevant at trial may depend on the evidence and should not be determined prematurely.

The claimant brought a libel action against the Chief Constable arising from a police press release issued after the claimant’s murder conviction had been quashed and the prosecution discontinued. The claimant alleged that the release falsely conveyed that he had murdered the deceased and escaped justice because of confusion about expert evidence.

The defendant applied under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and the inherent jurisdiction to strike out pleaded matters relied upon in aggravation of damages. Those matters challenged the thoroughness and ethical quality of the investigation, criticised the treatment of expert and CCTV evidence, and relied on evidence said to support suicide rather than murder. The central issue was whether those allegations were a proportionate and proper use of the libel action.

1. Application granted. Paragraph 7(f) of the particulars of claim, and the corresponding references in paragraph 12 of the reply, were struck out on case-management grounds.
2. The court applied CPR 3.4(2)(b) and its inherent jurisdiction to prevent the libel trial being distracted by issues unnecessary to resolving liability and the principal damages issues. Even assuming that the pleaded matters were proved, the likely increase in damages was of little significance. Investigating them would therefore be disproportionate to the time and cost required.
3. The claimant’s wish to have the investigation examined was understandable, but the ongoing inquiry following his complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission provided the appropriate context for that investigation. The existence of that inquiry did not itself determine the relevance or truth of the pleaded matters in the libel action, but it reinforced the conclusion that they were not suitable for detailed ventilation in this claim.
4. The claimant was entitled to give ordinary evidence about his feelings in response to publication of the words complained of. That entitlement did not require the struck-out allegations to remain pleaded.
5. The court declined to impose the claimant’s proposed conditions concerning the use of evidence about the investigation. The conditions were expressed too widely. The relevance, if any, of the statements that the investigation was thorough and ethical would have to be addressed at trial, in the light of the evidence then available and, if the jury trial remained, by an appropriate direction from the trial judge.