The plaintiffs sued three police officers for malicious prosecution. Specific discovery of documents relating to the previous misconduct of one of these officers was refused.
Held: Appeal allowed. Confessions were the only evidence against the plaintiffs, who had served their time afer convictions for robbery which were subsequently quashed. They said the confessions were fabricated. Their appeals were allowed after evidence that officers had improperly procured the conviction of other defendants in similar ways. To succeed the plaintiffs had to prove that prosecutions were unfounded. The officers’ state of mind was essential. Documents were sought to be discovered to provide evidence of similar facts in proof of the misconduct the prosecution. Evidence of the officers’ dishonesty went beyond discrediting him as a witness. They showed similar conduct in other cases. The judge refused specific discovery saying it was not similar fact evidence. The matters relied on were not concerned to rebut a defence of accident or coincidence. They did not show system, and they had no direct probative value in relation to the issue in the present case. They were merely attacks on credit, and the plaintiffs already possessed ample evidence for this purpose. The appeal was allowed. At discovery the court lookd to potential rather than actual admissibility. ‘In my view conduct of this kind is so contrary to the expected standard of behaviour of an investigating police officer that, if proved, it is capable of rendering it more probable that the plaintiffs’ alleged confession was not made and proving that D/Sgt Day had no sufficient belief in the grounds of and an improper motive for the prosecution of the plaintiffs.’ For the purpose of specific discovery, it was enough to show ‘sufficient similarity’ (as opposed to a ‘striking similarity’) between the other conduct and the conduct in the present action. He dismissed the ‘mere propensity’ argument in these terms: ‘I consider the significance of the misconduct alleged went beyond mere propensity. All similar fact evidence relating to misconduct on other occasions could be stigmatised as showing a propensity to behave in that fashion, but the allegations in the present case, if accepted, show that on other occasions D/Sgt Day was prepared to pervert the course of justice in a manner which made it more probable that he did so on the occasion in question.’
Judges:
Beldam, Dillon, and Roch LJJ
Citations:
Unreported, 10 February 1993
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Boardman HL 1974
The defendant appealed the admission of similar fact evidence against him. Acts of buggery were alleged by a schoolmaster with boys in which the accused was the passive partner.
Held: In order to be admissible similar facts must bear a . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v P HL 1991
The defendant faced specimen counts of rape and incest against each of his two daughters. The trial judge refused an application for separate trials in respect of the offences alleged against each daughter. The defendant was convicted.
Held: . .
Cited by:
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of the South Wales Police CA 23-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages for malicious prosecution, and sought to adduce similar fact evidence. The defendant appealed an order admitting the evidence.
Held: Comparisons between admission of similar fact evidence in civil and criminal . .
Cited – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 28-Apr-2005
The claimant sought damages against the police, and wanted to bring in evidence of previous misconduct by the officers on a similar fact basis. They had been imprisoned and held for several years based upon admissions which they said they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.186051
