Paul Bush v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police

Permission to bring private committal proceedings for contempt should be refused unless there is a strong prima facie case and the proceedings satisfy the requirements of public interest, proportionality and the overriding objective.

A chief constable is not vicariously liable under section 88 of the Police Act 1996 for contempt committed personally by police officers. The provision concerns civil liability for unlawful conduct and does not contain the clear words required to create vicarious criminal or quasi-criminal liability. Allegations that witness evidence is false should ordinarily be dealt with in the underlying civil proceedings where they concern credibility and have little evidential support.

The claimant brought a committal application under CPR Part 81 against the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police. The application alleged that two police officers had signed false witness statements in the claimant’s pending County Court claim for misfeasance in public office.

The claimant relied on section 88 of the Police Act 1996, contending that the Chief Constable was vicariously liable for the officers’ conduct. The central issues were whether the Chief Constable could be liable for their alleged contempt and, alternatively, whether permission should be granted to pursue committal proceedings against the officers.

1. Vicarious liability of the Chief Constable. Section 88 of the Police Act 1996 could not render the Chief Constable liable for contempt of court not personally committed by him or her. The provision was directed to civil liability for unlawful conduct and did not create vicarious liability for criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings. Clear words would be required for such a result. Section 88(3) reinforced the conclusion because it could otherwise expose a Chief Constable who was not in office when the contempt occurred to imprisonment.
2. Permission test. Applying the test in Stobart Group Ltd v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564, permission for a private committal application requires a strong prima facie case. The court must also be satisfied that the public interest requires the proceedings, that they are proportionate, and that they comply with the overriding objective in the CPR. Proportionality includes the strength of the case, the value of the underlying claim, likely costs and court time. Public interest depends on matters including the evidence of falsity and knowledge, the circumstances, significance and use of the statement, and the maker’s understanding of its likely effect.
3. The claimant’s evidence did not establish an arguable case, still less a strong prima facie case, that either officer knowingly made a false statement of truth. The differences between versions of an email were explained by editing and migration of the police email system. The allegations concerning the second officer were unsupported by sufficient evidence.
4. The allegations were principally attacks on the officers’ credibility. Their proper forum was the underlying County Court action, not separate committal proceedings. There was no public interest in bringing the proceedings, and they were disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
5. Permission was refused. The application was dismissed and certified as totally without merit.