swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Information - From: 1980 To: 1984
This page lists 1 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
Neilson -v- Laugharne [1981] QB 736; [1981] 1 All ER 829; [1981] 2 WLR 537
1981
CA
Lord Denning MR, Oliver and O'Connor LJJ
Police, Information
A claim was made against the Chief Constable of Lancashire for trespass, wrongful imprisonment, false arrest and assault. The Chief Constable's response to the letter before action was to write to the plaintiff's solicitors stating he had decided to call for an investigation under section 49 of the Police Act 1964, that the investigating officer would be contacting them and the plaintiff, and that the question of compensation would be considered at the conclusion of the investigation. The defendant claimed that, save for the plaintiff's own statement, statements taken from the plaintiff and a number of other people were protected on public interest grounds and by litigation privilege. The affidavit in support of the public interest claim was by the deputy chief constable. That in support of the claim of litigation privilege was by a common law clerk who stated that the dominant purpose of the investigating officer's inquiry was to obtain evidence for the defence to the action. Held: The claim to public interest immunity succeeded but that to litigation privilege did not. The court preferred to rely on the Chief Constable's initial letter rather than the clerk's affidavit. A police investigation is not part of the administration of justice.
Oliver LJ stated that the Chief Constable's letter to the plaintiff's solicitors demonstrated that the dominant purpose of the investigation was the statutory purpose and that had its dominant purpose been to provide material for the threatened legal proceedings it was a very tricky letter indeed because it in effect invited the prospective plaintiff to make a statement to the representative of the prospective defendant under the guise of carrying out a statutory inquiry.
1 Citers
