Caetano v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

A police decision to administer a simple caution must be based on an accurate understanding of the admitted conduct and a proper assessment of the public interest. Domestic context does not automatically make an incident domestic violence or operate as an aggravating factor. The decision-maker must consider the particular circumstances, including the nature of the violence, injury, vulnerability, mental health and relevant mitigating features. Judicial intervention remains rare because police officers enjoy a wide margin of appreciation, but intervention is justified where material factual errors lead to an unreasonable assessment of gravity and disposal. Where the proper assessment shows that prosecution is inconceivable and a caution is not required in the public interest, the appropriate outcome may be no further action.

The applicant sought judicial review of a simple caution for assault by beating issued after she admitted slapping her partner twice. She maintained that the partner had returned home drunk, refused to leave and had assaulted and attempted to strangle her. The officer deciding whether to caution relied on an incomplete and inaccurate summary which overstated her violence and understated his conduct. He assessed the offence at gravity level two and concluded that a caution was appropriate. A senior officer later reviewed and retained the caution. The central issues were whether the public interest test for an out-of-court disposal had been properly applied and whether the domestic context justified treating the incident as aggravated domestic violence.

1. Application granted. The decision to issue the caution and the later decision to retain it were flawed.
2. The admission of two slaps satisfied the clear and reliable admission requirement and the evidential stage of the Full Code Test. The question was whether a simple caution was in the public interest.
3. The decision-maker had relied on a materially inaccurate account. The summary suggested that the applicant had admitted slapping her partner several times and treated her account of strangulation as inconsistent or unreliable. The applicant’s conduct was therefore overstated and the partner’s conduct understated. That error was material.
4. In assessing gravity and public interest, the officer had to consider the actual facts and the particular circumstances. It was insufficient to reason that the incident occurred in a domestic context, and therefore amounted to domestic violence which automatically aggravated the offence. The considerations identified in the CPS domestic violence policy could assist, but this incident did not resemble the cumulative and interlinked abuse contemplated by that policy.
5. On the proper facts, the incident involved two impulsive slaps by a vulnerable and unwell woman of excellent character, causing no injury, after a drunken partner returned home and refused to leave. The gravity score should have been one rather than two. A prosecution was inconceivable and the public interest did not require a caution. No further action was the obvious outcome.
6. The court accepted that police officers enjoy a wide margin of appreciation and that intervention after a caution will be rare, as stated in R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Thompson [1997] 1 WLR 1519. This was nevertheless an exceptional case warranting intervention.