Coghlan v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 February 2010, the police attended the home of the Plaintiff in The City following a violent incident in which the Plaintiff was found bleeding from knife wounds and the Defendant was found dead from gunshot wounds. The Defendant had been shot in the head at close range with a silenced handgun and was also shot twice in the chest, but the bullets were stopped by body armour. The Defendant was found clutching a bloodied lock knife. The scene suggested a gangland dispute. Both men were known to the police for previous serious allegations, including murder charges against the Plaintiff and suspected involvement in serious organised crime by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff was arrested on suspicion of murder, charged on 13 February 2010, and remanded in custody until 29 July 2010 when the prosecution offered no evidence, resulting in a not guilty verdict and his release. The prosecution collapsed due to expert evidence indicating that the Defendant was the aggressor, the Plaintiff acted in self-defence, and that the Defendant likely brought the weapons to the scene.

On 5 August 2016, the Plaintiff issued civil proceedings against the Chief Constables of Cheshire Police and Greater Manchester Police and the Director General of the National Crime Agency ("the NCA"). The defendants sought to strike out the claim or obtain summary judgment, while the Plaintiff sought permission to amend the claim form and to join the Director of Public Prosecutions as a fourth defendant. The court indicated it would strike out claims against Greater Manchester Police and the NCA and grant summary judgment for all defendants.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the defendants, specifically the police forces and the NCA, can be regarded as the prosecutor for the purposes of the tort of malicious prosecution.
2. Whether the claim for malicious prosecution discloses reasonable grounds and has a real prospect of success.
3. Whether summary judgment or strike out is appropriate given the evidence and pleadings.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

• The police investigate offences but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) independently decides on charging; therefore, the CPS was the prosecutor, not the police.
• The police should only be regarded as prosecutor in narrow circumstances, distinguishable from cases where complainants are the sole source of allegations.
• Greater Manchester Police was not involved in the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of the Plaintiff.
• The NCA's involvement was limited to passing surveillance evidence to Cheshire Police and had no role in the prosecution.
• The claim against Greater Manchester Police and the NCA discloses no reasonable grounds and should be struck out.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The wider context of surveillance and cooperation between the defendants should be considered, not just the immediate circumstances of the shooting.
• The charging decision was influenced by the police and was flawed due to failure to disclose relevant material such as the recent rape allegation and surveillance under Operation Confection.
• The Plaintiff initially pleaded claims for false imprisonment and misfeasance in public office but later abandoned these, focusing on malicious prosecution.
• The Plaintiff contended there was no reasonable or probable cause for prosecution and that the prosecution should have been dropped earlier based on forensic evidence.
• In case of defective pleadings, the Plaintiff sought an opportunity to amend rather than have the claim struck out.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered whether the defendants could be regarded as the prosecutor for malicious prosecution purposes. The starting point was that the CPS independently decides on prosecution. The police investigate and provide evidence but do not usually prosecute. The court reviewed relevant authority confirming that only in rare circumstances where the CPS cannot exercise independent judgment would the police or another entity be considered the prosecutor.

The court found that Cheshire Police conducted a proper investigation, collected evidence, and passed it to the CPS, who made an independent charging decision based on the Threshold Test. There was no evidence that the police withheld or misrepresented material to the CPS to undermine its independence.

The court rejected the Plaintiff's criticisms that relevant material from other operations or allegations was withheld, noting the CPS was aware of the history and had received intelligence from the other defendants. The court also found no evidence of deliberate suppression of material that would render the prosecution baseless.

Regarding Greater Manchester Police and the NCA, the court found no involvement in the investigation, arrest, charge, or prosecution of the Plaintiff. Cooperation and information sharing did not amount to prosecuting conduct. Therefore, the claims against these defendants disclosed no reasonable grounds and were struck out.

The court acknowledged the serious history of disclosure failures in related cases but distinguished those from the present case, finding no compelling reason to allow the claim to proceed to trial.

The court also considered the timing of the Plaintiff’s claims and the abandonment of certain claims such as false imprisonment and misfeasance, concluding that the remaining malicious prosecution claim had no real prospect of success.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's claim against all three defendants.

Specifically:

• The claims against Greater Manchester Police and the NCA were struck out for failing to disclose reasonable grounds.
• The Plaintiff had no real prospect of success against any defendant, justifying summary judgment in their favour.
• The claim against the NCA was found to be totally without merit.

The direct effect is the termination of the Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim at the summary stage, with no new precedent established. The court noted the importance of the independent role of the CPS in prosecution decisions and the rarity of circumstances in which police or other agencies may be considered the prosecutor for tortious liability purposes.