Ashley & Anor v Sussex Police

Factual and Procedural Background

The court was asked to resolve a dispute concerning the scope of redactions in a report, referred to as the Moonstone Report, which the Defendant had supplied to the Claimants' advisers. The issue arose in the context of objections related to permitting inspection of documents in ongoing litigation. The Judge was requested to review the entire report to determine whether any redacted portions fell within the Defendant’s disclosure obligations under CPR Part 31. Following preliminary consideration and discussion with counsel for the Defendant, limited further disclosure was agreed upon. The central issues related to the relevance of certain passages concerning the belief of an individual named Mr Sherwood at the material time and the quantification of damages.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the redacted parts of the Moonstone Report fell within the Defendant’s obligations of disclosure under CPR Part 31.
2. The appropriate test to apply in determining the scope of disclosure, particularly whether material relating to the Defendant’s alleged misconduct in planning and executing an armed raid should be disclosed.
3. Whether documents disclosing information potentially aggravating damages should be disclosed when such conduct was not pleaded or was withdrawn.
4. The relevance of vicarious liability principles in assessing whether false information given to Mr Sherwood by other officers affects the Defendant’s liability and the corresponding disclosure obligations.
5. Whether the Chief Constable (Defendant) can rely on the state of belief of Mr Sherwood induced by potentially negligent or false information imparted by other officers for whom the Chief Constable is vicariously liable.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimants' Arguments

• Disclosure should include anything that sheds light on misconduct attributable to the Defendant concerning the planning and execution of the armed raid.
• Material discrediting the Defendant in the Moonstone Report should be disclosed due to its potential relevance to aggravation of damages.
• At trial, it should be open to argue that if Mr Sherwood’s state of mind was influenced by false information imparted negligently by other officers, the Chief Constable should not be permitted to rely on Mr Sherwood’s belief induced by such information.
• Relied on dicta from higher courts suggesting possible development of law to preclude the Chief Constable from relying on negligently inaccurate information imparted to Mr Sherwood.

Defendant's Arguments

• The test for disclosure should be limited to documents relevant under CPR Part 31 and issues presently live in the litigation.
• Negligence attributable to the Chief Constable in planning and execution has been extensively admitted, and claims such as misfeasance in public office relating to pre-shooting events have been withdrawn or struck out.
• Aggravated damages require pleaded acts or omissions causing additional harm known to the claimant; thus, disclosure for “fishing” purposes is impermissible.
• Under established principles of vicarious liability, the Chief Constable stands in the shoes of Mr Sherwood and can rely on any defence available to him personally, including his honest belief.
• Dicta cited by the Claimants do not represent the current law but are suggestions for possible future development and should not influence disclosure decisions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court approached the issue by applying the established criteria under CPR Part 31, focusing on the relevance of documents to the pleaded issues, primarily the belief of Mr Sherwood at the material time and the quantification of damages. The Judge rejected the Claimants’ broader test for disclosure, particularly the argument that all material discrediting the Defendant should be disclosed for potential aggravation of damages, emphasizing that aggravated damages require pleaded acts or omissions known to the claimant. The court underscored that disclosure cannot be used as a fishing expedition for unpleaded claims.

Regarding the Claimants’ submission about the effect of false information imparted negligently by other officers, the court held that the Defendant, sued as Chief Constable, stands in the shoes of Mr Sherwood and can rely on any defence available to him, including an honest belief, under principles of vicarious liability. The dicta from higher courts cited by the Claimants were acknowledged as interesting proposals for future legal development but not reflective of the current law. Therefore, the court declined to grant disclosure based on hypothetical legal arguments that had not yet been established.

The court noted that the point of law concerning vicarious liability and the effect of negligent briefing could be determined as a preliminary issue but found it unnecessary to do so in this instance given the extensive admissions already made. Ultimately, the court decided to adhere to the narrower criteria for disclosure consistent with CPR Part 31 and the issues presently live in the case.

Holding and Implications

The court REJECTED the Claimants’ submissions seeking broader disclosure of the Moonstone Report beyond the limited scope consistent with CPR Part 31 and the pleaded issues. The ruling limits disclosure to material relevant to the Defendant’s obligations and the specific issues of Mr Sherwood’s belief and damages quantification.

The direct effect is that the Defendant need only disclose limited additional material as agreed during the hearing, preventing the Claimants from using disclosure to explore unpleaded or hypothetical legal arguments. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but reaffirms established principles of disclosure and vicarious liability in the context of this litigation.