Kandamwala v Cambridgeshire Constabulary HQS

On a renewed application for permission to appeal, the court may adjourn the decision where the lower hearing and judgment raise sufficient concerns about procedural fairness or the treatment of a material legal issue. A transcript may be required to assess allegations that a party lacked a proper opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses or make submissions, or that the judge’s conduct created actual or apparent bias. Where the legality of an arrest is in issue, the court should address whether the statutory conditions for arrest were met, including the necessity requirement in Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 24(5)(e). Here, permission was neither granted nor refused; the application was adjourned pending the hearing transcript.

The applicant’s claim for wrongful arrest and racial discrimination was dismissed by His Honour Judge Yelton in the County Court and Family Court sitting at Cambridge. On a renewed application for permission to appeal, he challenged both the substance of the judgment and the conduct of the hearing. He alleged that the brief hearing prevented opening and closing submissions, restricted cross-examination and consideration of evidence, including CCTV, and created actual or apparent bias. The Court of Appeal also identified a possible failure to consider whether arrest was necessary under section 24(5)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The immediate question was whether permission should be determined after obtaining a transcript of the hearing.

Disposition and reasons

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was adjourned, subject to listing, to Tuesday 19 April and reserved to Lady Justice Gloster. The court did not grant or refuse permission.
2. The court had sufficient concerns about the fairness and adequacy of the lower hearing to require further evidence before deciding the application. Although the case had been listed in a two-day trial window, the hearing took place in two short sessions. The applicant said that he had been prevented from making an opening statement, had been interrupted while cross-examining witnesses, and had not been allowed adequate time to address the respondent’s evidence, CCTV evidence and police notes. He also alleged actual or apparent judicial bias.
3. The transcript was necessary to assess those complaints and to determine whether the conduct of the hearing could constitute a procedural ground for permission to appeal.
4. The court identified a further possible issue concerning the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The lower judge did not appear to have addressed whether the police had reasonable grounds for believing that arrest was necessary for one of the reasons in section 24(5). The defence relied on section 24(5)(e), concerning the prompt and effective investigation of the alleged offence or the person’s conduct. In light of conflicting evidence, the necessity of arrest required consideration, although the Court of Appeal made no final ruling on the statutory issue.
5. The applicant was directed to obtain the transcript of the hearing on 4 March, covering the specified sessions. A further transcript of the approved judgment was unnecessary, and the applicant was ordered to bear the cost of obtaining the hearing transcript.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On the renewed application for permission to appeal, the court adjourned the application pending a transcript of the hearing and reserved the matter to Lady Justice Gloster: [2016] EWCA Civ 171.
• County Court and Family Court sitting at Cambridge: His Honour Judge Yelton dismissed the applicant’s claim for wrongful arrest and racial discrimination.