West v Taylor-Duncan

Permission to bring committal proceedings for a false statement requires an arguable case that the statement was false, that its maker lacked an honest belief in its truth, and that the conduct interfered with the due administration of justice. The court may assume falsity for the purpose of testing the application, but the applicant must still provide evidence capable of establishing the maker’s lack of honest belief. A serious allegation of deliberate falsification is insufficient. Permission should also be refused where the applicant has not explained why committal proceedings are appropriate under the overriding objective, particularly where the alleged issue could have been addressed in the underlying proceedings.

The claimant sought permission under CPR 81 to bring committal proceedings against a police officer. He alleged that a witness statement used in earlier civil proceedings contained a deliberately false summary of answers given during a police interview. The alleged false summary concerned sexual preferences and was said to affect the officer’s credibility, an alleged human-rights breach and a personal-injury claim. The earlier civil claim had been dismissed. The central issues were whether there was an arguable case of falsity and lack of honest belief, whether the alleged conduct interfered with the administration of justice, and whether committal proceedings were appropriate under the overriding objective.

1. Outcome. The application for permission was refused as wholly without merit.
2. Under CPR 32.14 and CPR 81, the claimant had to establish an arguable case that: (i) the summary was false; (ii) the defendant made it without an honest belief in its truth; and (iii) the conduct involved an interference with the due administration of justice. The court treated the summary as inaccurate for the purpose of analysis, but that assumption did not establish the defendant’s state of mind.
3. The claimant relied principally on selected interview extracts and a report of the Police Complaints Commissioner. Those materials did not provide evidence, beyond the claimant’s assertion, that the defendant deliberately misled the court. The Commissioner had made no such finding. The court also considered the recorded evidence and the sexualised chat logs, which provided context capable of explaining the summary.
4. The claimant had not shown an arguable case that the defendant lacked an honest belief in the truth of the summary. Without that element, the alleged use of the statement could not amount to an interference with the due administration of justice.
5. In any event, the claimant had not explained why committal proceedings were appropriate in light of the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. The alleged falsity, if relevant, could have been investigated through evidence in the underlying proceedings, but it was not. The requirement in CPR 1.1(2)(c) was therefore not satisfied.
6. The court dispensed with personal service because the defendant had received notice and was represented. It admitted the affidavit despite defects in the jurat, applying the relevant procedural discretion. The judgment was directed to the High Court judge considering an Extended Civil Restraint Order.

First-instance decision on an application for permission to bring committal proceedings. The judgment also recorded that related civil claims had been dismissed or struck out, and that permission to appeal in some matters had been refused, but those decisions were not under appeal in this application.