O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26
Citation:O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26
Rule of thumb 1:If a Police interviewer is overly aggressive, or tells lies to the suspect, is the content of the interview evidence in the case? No, if the Police interviewer is overly aggressive or uses false statements to extract information then what is learned is inadmissible in Court.
Rule of thumb 2:If a Police officer repeatedly uses bullying tactics in interviews, can they be sued for malicious prosecution? Yes, where an officer does this repeatedly then a person is entitled to damages when this occurs to them.
Background facts:
The basic facts of this case were that O’Brien went to jail for 11 years for a murder evidence later showed he categorically did not admit. O’Brien was convicted on the basis of a falsely obtained confession from an associate which was obtained by improper practices of police officers. O’Brien sought to bring a malicious prosecution/ public services delict action against the police officers for improper conduct and obtain damages for all he had suffered. This test of being malicious/deliberate has a high threshold to prove, and O’Brien sought to rely on 3 other cases where these officers were alleged to have behaved similarly badly towards witnesses, meaning that the actions towards O’Brien were therefore more likely to have been pre-meditated, tactical, and thereby malicious, rather than done accidentally on the spur of the moment as purely bad police work, but the police challenged this evidence as being irrelevant as they claimed it was different from what O’Brien was arguing.
Judgment:
The Court however held that O’Brien did have the right to rely on this evidence in Court and the case was moved for a full hearing with this evidence being led. Where there are interviews of witnesses that are ‘oppressive, dishonest or oppressive’ then they are not deemed to be credible witness statements and they are not deemed to be credible witnesses. In other words where an interview has coached/led a witness, intimidated a witness, or made statements of fact to them which were untrue, then these are not credible and reliable witnesses. The Court also held that admissibility in civil cases is that it is potentially probative, and it does not have to be shown how it is clearly probative.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘His Honour Judge Graham Jones and the Court of Appeal were in my opinion right to regard the evidence which Mr O'Brien seeks to adduce as potentially probative, and so admissible. Mr O'Brien contends that, in the course of investigating the murder of Mr Saunders and prosecuting him and his co-defendants for that murder, named officers for whom the Chief Constable is responsible resorted to specific methods which were oppressive, dishonest and unprofessional. Accusations of such gravity must be clearly proved, and proof could never be easy. The primary evidence must relate to how Mr O'Brien and his co-defendants were treated. But if he were able to show that these same officers had, in the earlier cases of Griffiths and Ali, resorted to the same or similar methods in order to try and obtain admissions and convictions, his hand would be significantly strengthened: put technically, the matter which requires proof would be more probable... The judge reviewed the evidence and considered that it should be admitted.... and I do not think their conclusions can be faulted... the final say, in relation to any particular item of evidence, should rest with the trial judge’, Lord Bingham, "The Court of Appeal held that, in civil as opposed to criminal proceedings, the judge has to proceed in two stages when deciding whether to admit evidence. First he has to decide whether the evidence is admissible. If it is, he has to decide, as a matter of discretion whether he will permit the evidence to be led. The test of admissibility is that propounded by your Lordships' House in Director of Public Prosecutions v P [1991]2 AC 447. The exercise of discretion as to whether admissible evidence should be permitted to be led involves the approach that the judge should bring to case management in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)… I would simply apply the test of relevance as the test of admissibility of similar fact evidence in a civil suit. Such evidence is admissible if it is potentially probative of an issue in the action’, Lord Phillips.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.