Silcott v Commissioner of The Police for the Metropolis

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal by the Plaintiff against an order dismissing his appeal from a striking-out order made by Master Eyre. The Plaintiff originally pleaded three causes of action against the Defendant Commissioner: conspiracy to pervert the administration of public justice, misfeasance in a public office, and malicious prosecution. The first two causes were struck out, leaving only the malicious prosecution claim. The Plaintiff seeks to have the first two causes reinstated.

The relevant facts, assumed true for the purpose of the striking-out application, are that the Plaintiff was arrested for the murder of a police officer during a riot and subsequently convicted based largely on interview notes prepared by police officers. The Plaintiff alleges that these notes were fabricated to falsely implicate him. Following a Home Secretary-ordered investigation and a referral to the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff's convictions were quashed as unsafe. The Plaintiff then issued the present civil action.

The police officers involved were criminally tried for conspiracy and perjury but were acquitted. The Defendant Commissioner applied to strike out the Plaintiff's claims for conspiracy and misfeasance, leading to the current appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the alleged actions of the police officers are protected from civil action for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or misfeasance in a public office by a cloak of absolute immunity as a matter of public policy.
2. Whether the immunity rule extends to fabricated evidence prepared for criminal proceedings and related investigations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argues there is a qualitative difference between preparing false testimony (which is immune) and fabricating false physical evidence or documents (which is not immune).
• The Plaintiff contends that the fabrication of false interview notes is not protected by immunity because it is not part of investigating crime but the creation of false evidence.
• The Plaintiff submits that the police officers’ continuing assertions of the truthfulness of the notes during a post-conviction enquiry constitute misfeasance outside the immunity period.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Defendant Commissioner contends that the requirement in malicious prosecution to prove absence of reasonable and probable cause balances the public interests involved.
• The distinctions drawn by the Plaintiff between types of fabricated evidence are artificial and without rational basis.
• The immunity rule covers preparation of evidence as well as its presentation, including subsequent enquiries such as the section 17 enquiry in this case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Dawkins v Lord Rokeby [1873] L.R. 8 Q.B. 255	Established the immunity rule protecting parties and witnesses from actions based on statements or conduct in judicial proceedings.	Confirmed the fundamental immunity barring claims based on actions in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.
Marrinan v Vibart [1963] 1 Q.B. 528	Reinforced the immunity rule and rejected attempts to circumvent it by alleging conspiracies between witnesses.	Supported the court’s view that immunity applies to preparation and giving of evidence, even when false statements are alleged.
Munster v Lamb (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 588	Outlined public policy reasons for immunity: protecting bona fide actors from vexatious litigation.	Used to explain the policy underlying the immunity rule.
Roy v Prior [1971] A.C. 470	Clarified that immunity does not apply to malicious abuse of process such as malicious prosecution or arrest.	Distinguished malicious prosecution claims from other claims barred by immunity.
Evans v London Hospital Medical College [1981] 1 A.E.R. 715	Defined the scope of immunity to statements and conduct as part of the investigatory process leading to prosecution.	Upheld the immunity’s extension to investigatory and preparatory acts.
Lincoln v Daniels [1962] 1 Q.B. 237	Limited immunity to acts within the relevant proceedings, excluding acts outside such as defamatory communications.	Used to clarify the limits of immunity.
Martin v Watson [1995] 3 WLR 318	Confirmed that malicious prosecution involves abuse of court process and that immunity does not bar such claims.	Supported the distinction between malicious prosecution and other claims barred by immunity.
McDonagh and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, The Times, 28 December 1989	Rejected an attempt to add misfeasance in a public office as an alternative to malicious prosecution, emphasizing proof requirements.	Used as a recent authority supporting the immunity rule’s application.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reaffirmed the immunity rule protecting parties and witnesses from civil actions based on statements or conduct in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. This immunity extends to the preparation of evidence, including the creation of documents and statements made for the purpose of prosecution. The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that fabricating false documents is categorically different and not protected by immunity.

The court emphasized the public policy rationale underlying the immunity: to protect bona fide participants in the justice system from vexatious litigation and to avoid collateral attacks on the truth or value of evidence given in court. The immunity applies to acts that are part of investigating or preparing for prosecution.

The court acknowledged that malicious prosecution claims remain viable exceptions to the immunity rule. However, the Plaintiff’s attempt to pursue claims for conspiracy and misfeasance without the requirement to prove absence of reasonable and probable cause was viewed as an attempt to circumvent the immunity rule.

The court noted that the police officers involved were acquitted criminally but that the civil claims for conspiracy and misfeasance were not yet tried. Nonetheless, the immunity rule precludes these claims in the civil context in this case.

Finally, the court rejected the Plaintiff’s case on the factual basis that the interview notes were not signed by the Plaintiff and that the police officers’ evidence was unchallenged, further undermining the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the striking-out of the Plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misfeasance in a public office on the basis of the immunity rule. The malicious prosecution claim remains unaffected. The decision confirms the broad scope of immunity protecting those involved in the investigatory and preparatory stages of criminal proceedings from civil actions, thereby reinforcing established public policy considerations. No new precedent was set beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.