Wayne Leighton v Chief Constable Of North Yorkshire Police

An appeal is a review, not a rehearing. Permission should be refused where the proposed grounds have no real prospect of success and disclose no compelling reason for an appeal. A trial judge need not address every argument or alleged procedural irregularity. Findings are required only on matters material to the issues for decision, and reasons must explain the conclusions reached on those salient issues. An appellate court should not interfere with factual findings unless, having regard to the evidence as a whole, they are plainly wrong. A police officer may rely on the power under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 even where no arrest has been made. The decision to charge and the authorisation of a postal requisition are distinct aspects of the charging process.

The claimant brought claims arising from two 2014 incidents involving North Yorkshire Police, including false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, trespass to goods, harassment and alleged Convention breaches. Following a four-day trial, Recorder Davies dismissed all claims and ordered the claimant to pay 85% of the trial costs.

The claimant applied for permission to appeal, alleging inadequate reasons, errors of law and fact, unfairness at trial and an unjust costs order. The central issues were whether the Recorder had failed to determine material matters, misapplied the legal tests, made findings unsupported by the evidence, conducted the trial unfairly, or made an excessive costs order.

1. Outcome. The application for permission to appeal was refused. None of the grounds had a real prospect of success, and no compelling reason justified permission.
2. Reasons. The Recorder was required to give reasons on disputed material issues, but did not have to address every argument, evidential factor or alleged procedural irregularity. She sufficiently explained her conclusions on the elements of the causes of action, including reasonable and probable cause and malice in the malicious prosecution claims.
3. Police powers. The Recorder was entitled to find that PC Gatecliffe lawfully removed the claimant’s ignition keys under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, having believed that an offence had occurred and that driving away might endanger pedestrians. The claimant was not unlawfully detained merely because he voluntarily complied with an instruction while the officer checked his details.
4. Prosecution decisions. Mr Halstead and Ms Jameson were properly treated as the persons who set the criminal law in motion. The decision to charge and authorisation of the postal requisition were distinct aspects of the process under section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 55 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 did not apply because no fixed penalty notice had been issued.
5. Appeal on facts and fairness. The appellate court would not retry the evidence. The Recorder was entitled to accept the police and prosecution witnesses, and the challenges did not show that her findings were plainly wrong. Her management of the trial was fair and proportionate. The costs order, requiring payment of 85% of the defendant’s trial costs, was just and, in the circumstances, generous.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division) — Permission to appeal from the order of Recorder Davies dated 26 April 2023 was refused.
• Recorder Davies — After a four-day trial, dismissed the claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, trespass to goods, harassment and alleged Convention breaches, and ordered the claimant to pay 85% of the trial costs.