Manser, R (on the application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

A simple caution may be quashed on judicial review only in an exceptional case, normally involving a clear breach of the applicable caution guidelines. Police officers retain a wide margin of appreciation, and the court retains discretion not to intervene even where a breach is established. The disclosure obligation is disclosure of material and accurate evidence, not necessarily the underlying documents. An inaccurate description of an injury will not automatically invalidate a caution. The court must consider the evidence as a whole, the suspect’s admissions, the opportunity for legal advice and reflection, and whether the alleged defect materially affected acceptance of the caution.

The claimant sought judicial review of an adult caution administered for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Permission was limited to whether the police had failed to comply with paragraph 76 of the Ministry of Justice Guidance Simple Cautions for Adult Offenders by failing to disclose adequate and accurate evidence concerning the victim’s injuries.

The claimant had been told that the victim had lost a front tooth, suffered a split lip and sustained a broken nose. The medical form recorded facial abrasions, bruising and a swollen, tender but non-deviated nose. The central issues were whether the disclosure was inaccurate or inadequate, whether that amounted to a clear breach of the Guidance, and whether the circumstances were exceptional enough to justify quashing the caution.

1. Claim dismissed. The court had jurisdiction to quash a caution, but the remedy was exceptional. The police enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation, and the court retained a discretion not to interfere even where the Guidance had been clearly breached, following the approach summarised in Lee v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2012] EWHC 283 (Admin).
2. Paragraph 76 of the Guidance required disclosure of the material evidence against the suspect and required that evidence to be accurate. It did not require disclosure of every document, so there was no obligation to disclose the detained persons medical form itself.
3. The reference to loss of a front tooth was supported by witness statements, custody records and the investigating officer’s record. The description of a split lip was not materially inaccurate. The description of a broken nose was inaccurate: the evidence supported only a suspected broken nose.
4. That single inaccuracy did not amount to a clear breach of the Guidance when the evidence was considered as a whole. The police had disclosed a description of the injuries and could reasonably have considered that they had complied with paragraph 76.
5. Alternatively, the circumstances were not exceptional. The claimant admitted returning to the restaurant and kicking the victim in the face. Those admitted facts constituted ABH, and any potential self-defence argument was outside the permission granted. She had time to consider the caution and had legal advice before accepting it.
6. The possibility that she might otherwise face a more serious charge or punishment did not amount to improper inducement. A caution could properly be offered for a lesser offence while a more serious prosecution was being considered, and the caution was the least penalty available for ABH.