Crawford v Jenkins
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE BEATSON
- SIR TIMOTHY LLOYD
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Lincoln Crawford appealed a ruling granting Ms. Bronwen Jenkins immunity against claims of false imprisonment and harassment. Jenkins had informed police of Crawford's alleged breaches of court orders, resulting in his arrest. The trial court ruled Jenkins’s statements were protected by witness immunity. The appeal addressed whether immunity applied to Crawford's claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Court of Appeal upheld the immunity, referencing principles protecting witness statements and emphasizing the necessity of such immunity to ensure participation in the judicial process without fear of litigation. The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
Sir Timothy Lloyd:
Introduction and summary
This appeal by the Claimant, Mr Lincoln Crawford, is brought against an order of Her Honour Judge Baucher in the Central London County Court dated 2 October 2013. Her order was made on submissions by way of preliminary issues of law on the facts alleged by the Claimant. The Claimant Appellant and the Defendant Respondent, Ms Bronwen Jenkins, were formerly husband and wife. He is a barrister, she a solicitor. They have two children. The present proceedings are part of an acrimonious sequence of litigation arising from the breakdown of the marriage.
On 16 July 2009 the Claimant was arrested for breach of an order made in the matrimonial proceedings. An hour later he was arrested again for breach of a different order made in other proceedings. He was detained for just over four hours as a result of the two arrests. The arrests were effected following information being given to the police by the Defendant. The Claimant was released on bail and no prosecution ensued.
By her order the judge declared, in paragraph 3, that the Defendant’s “complaint to the police was protected by immunity from suit” and, in paragraph 4, that the remainder of the claim against the Defendant under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”), based on two text messages identified in the Amended Particulars of Claim, should be struck out.
The Claimant’s action was at first brought only against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, but that claim has been settled and the police have played no part in the appeal.
I will need to describe the dispute and the proceedings in more detail below, but the first point in the appeal is whether the judge was correct to hold that the Defendant was not liable to be sued for damages for false imprisonment on the basis that her acts which would be relevant to the cause of action were statements made to the police which might have been the basis of evidence in court if the matter had led to a prosecution; I will call this the witness immunity rule. The judge came to that conclusion on the basis of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Westcott v Westcott [2009] QB 407 , [2008] EWCA Civ 818 . The Appellant contends that this is wrong and that the contrary conclusion follows from the House of Lords’ decision in Roy v Prior [1971] AC 470 and subsequent decisions following it.
Issues also arise from the claim under the 1997 Act. One is whether such a claim is also barred by im