Andrew Reynolds v Chief Constable of Kent Police

Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 applies to claims for damages in respect of personal injury, including assault and battery, but not ordinarily to the distinct tort of false imprisonment, which concerns deprivation of liberty. A finding of fundamental dishonesty requires cogent evidence, but it is not confined to cases involving fabricated injuries or false documents. A trial judge may make credibility findings beyond the jury’s specific factual answers where fundamental dishonesty is separately in issue. Dishonesty is fundamental where it substantially affects the presentation of the personal injury claim. The statutory defence may apply to claims against the police. The threshold of substantial injustice is high. Unlawful detention does not entitle a person to use disproportionate force, such as biting or kicking.

Andrew Reynolds claimed against the Chief Constable of Kent Police for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution arising from his arrest and detention in December 2015. A jury rejected substantial parts of his account. The County Court nevertheless found that he had been fundamentally dishonest under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, dismissed the entire claim and recorded damages of £6,000.

On appeal, the claimant challenged the finding of fundamental dishonesty, the application of section 57 to false imprisonment, the adequacy of notice, causation, substantial injustice, damages and the assessment of reasonable force. The central issues were whether false imprisonment was a personal injury claim for section 57 purposes and whether dismissal of the assault claim was justified.

The appeal was allowed in part.

1. False imprisonment. Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 applies to proceedings on a claim for damages in respect of personal injury. False imprisonment is a tort concerning deprivation of liberty, not itself a personal injury claim. Personal injury arising during detention ordinarily forms part of an assault or battery claim. The County Court therefore had no power under section 57 to dismiss the false imprisonment claim or extinguish the damages flowing from it (paras 48–54).
2. Fundamental dishonesty. The Act prescribes no exclusive form of evidence and imposes no requirement for false documents or fabricated injury. Cogent evidence is nevertheless required because of the serious consequences. A mere preference for another witness’s evidence, or an isolated untruth, will not necessarily suffice. Here, the trial judge had independently assessed the claimant over several hours and identified numerous deliberate lies concerning material aspects of the assault claim. She was entitled to make findings going beyond the jury’s specific answers, provided she did not contradict findings already made by the jury (paras 56–65).
3. The dishonesty went to the heart of the assault claim because the alleged police-caused back injury would have produced a substantial award and the false allegations substantially affected the presentation of the claim. It did not go to the heart of the separate false imprisonment claim, which depended on compliance with section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (paras 65–67).
4. Fairness required adequate warning, sufficient particularisation and an opportunity to respond. Those requirements were met through the Defence, written opening submissions and cross-examination (paras 68–70). Section 57 could apply to claims against the police, and its operation did not require a different approach under the Convention (para 71).
5. The claimant would not suffer substantial injustice from dismissal of the assault claim. He retained the finding of false imprisonment and the damages arising from it; the assault claim was materially affected by fundamental dishonesty (paras 75–78). The damages issue was remitted for agreement or determination. Costs also required reconsideration, including under CPR 44.16(2)(b) (paras 79–84).
6. The claimant was not entitled to use disproportionate force in response to unlawful arrest. Biting and kicking were unreasonable responses on the findings made (para 81).

• Canterbury County Court: The claim was dismissed under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 following a finding of fundamental dishonesty. Damages of £6,000 were recorded and costs were ordered on an indemnity basis.
• High Court (King's Bench Division): The appeal was allowed in part. The dismissal of the false imprisonment claim was set aside. Damages and costs were remitted for agreement or determination.