Litigation

B P Collins Solicitors: talk to the experts

Gerrards Cross: +44(0) 1753 889995
Beaconsfield: +44(0) 1494 675363

Appeal Court ruling grants immunity to police complainants

15 July 2008

PRESS RELEASE

A judgment given today by the Court of Appeal has been hailed as an important victory for freedom of speech.

For the first time, anyone complaining to the police about an alleged criminal incident will now be protected from the possibility of being sued for defamation by the person they accuse, from the moment they make the complaint.

It’s a significant decision because until now a person was only protected from a defamation claim once the police had begun to investigate an allegation and not at the time of the initial complaint, something which Appeal Court Judge the Rt Hon Lord Justice Ward said had "no logic".

The ruling marks the latest twist in a high profile case involving Worcestershire magistrate Mr Richard Westcott, who tried to sue his former daughter-in-law, Dr Sarah Westcott, for slander and libel over allegations he assaulted her and his baby grandson.

Last October, the High Court rejected his claim, saying her oral and written complaints to the police were protected by absolute privilege. Mr Westcott appealed, but today’s ruling upholds the original judgment.

Matthew Brandis, a partner at Thames Valley law firm B P Collins, which represented Dr Westcott, welcomed the decision.

He said: "This is a very important ruling and a victory for freedom of speech. It is everybody’s right to be able to make a complaint to the police without fear of being sued in relation to that complaint and now the Court of Appeal has made it crystal clear where the law stands.

"Both our client and ourselves are pleased with the verdict. Dr Westcott bears no ill will towards Mr Westcott and very much hopes this will be the end of the matter."

In a strongly worded judgment, the Rt Hon Lord Justice Ward said: "The police cannot investigate a possible crime without the alleged criminal activity coming to their notice. Making an oral complaint is the first step in that process of investigation. In order to have confidence that protection will be afforded, the potential complainant must know in advance of making an approach to the police that her complaint will be immune from a direct or a flank attack. There is no logic in conferring immunity at the end of the process but not from the very beginning of the process.

"In my judgment, any inhibition on the freedom to complain will seriously erode the rigours of the criminal justice system and will be contrary to the public interest. In my judgment immunity must be given from the earliest moment that the criminal justice system becomes involved. It follows that the occasion of the making of both the oral complaint and the subsequent written complaint must be absolutely privileged."

Mr Westcott had tried to sue his former daughter-in-law after she made a complaint to the police that he assaulted her in an incident at his home in March 2005.

Although he was interviewed by police, they decided not to prosecute him over the alleged incident.

Mr Westcott, who denied the allegations, was concerned that he had not had a chance to clear his name in court. He claimed Dr Westcott’s initial complaint to the police was malicious and that the only way to defend his reputation was by bringing proceedings for defamation.

At the earlier hearing the High Court was told that the "very serious" allegations were known to colleagues of Mr Westcott, who had regularly chaired the Family Panel at Worcester Magistrates’ Court and that Worcester Social Services had written to Dr Westcott advising her to keep her son Daniel away from his grandfather in order to protect herself and her baby from the possibility of further incidents of "domestic violence". This had, said his counsel, caused him "serious upset and embarrassment".

However, in today's judgment, fellow Appeal Court Judge the Rt Hon Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, said the public interest in victims or witnesses of crime coming forward to the police was more pressing and more important than the protection of the reputation of the person accused of the crime.

And, he said, Mr Westcott had a "degree of vindication" by virtue of the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service that there was insufficient evidence to create a reasonable prospect of his conviction. "A man is considered to be innocent unless proved guilty. That must be sufficient for him," he said.

ENDS

Media enquiries:
Samantha Howe
Marketing Department
Tel: 01753 279004
samantha.howe@bpcollins.co.uk