Stone v Humberside Police & Anor

Permission to appeal requires grounds with arguable merit showing that the decision below may be wrong. Courts cannot permit repeated litigation of issues already decided; litigation must eventually achieve finality. An acquittal under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 does not, by itself, establish that the related arrest, detention or prosecution was unlawful. A complaint that a judge’s adverse rulings show bias is insufficient without evidence of actual bias or a reasonable basis for apparent bias.

Three linked claims against the police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service arose from the claimant’s arrest, detention and prosecution following an email sent to government employees. The claimant had been acquitted of an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, but convicted of harassment and conditionally discharged.

The High Court struck out the claims in November 2014. The claimant also challenged the judge’s refusal to recuse himself. He renewed three applications for permission to appeal, alleging unfairness, bias and merit in his claims. The central questions were whether the claims were impermissible re-litigation and whether the acquittal made the arrest, detention or prosecution unlawful.

1. The three applications for permission to appeal were refused. The claimant had not demonstrated grounds with arguable merit for concluding that the High Court judge was wrong.
2. The material before the court disclosed no evidence that the judge had treated the claimant unfairly, was actually biased against him, or that there was a perceived basis for concluding that he was biased. The claimant’s dissatisfaction with adverse rulings did not establish bias or justify recusal.
3. The High Court correctly identified the legal difficulty with the claims. They constituted the third iteration of earlier litigation covering the same ground. Courts cannot permit parties to continue litigating points already decided against them; finality in litigation is required.
4. An acquittal on the charge under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 did not establish that the claimant’s arrest, detention or prosecution was unlawful. The acquittal therefore did not provide an arguable basis for disturbing the strike-out decision.
5. The court agreed with observations made by Vos LJ when refusing permission on the papers. The renewed applications were accordingly refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): renewed applications for permission to appeal refused.
• High Court, Kingston-upon-Hull District Registry: HHJ Richardson QC struck out the three linked claims in November 2014. His recusal ruling was dated 12 September 2014.