Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt & Anor
[2024] EWHC 524 (KB)
David Alan Sturgess v Teresa Mary Crick
24 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2686 (KB)
High Court
Someone was convicted of a crime in 2009 and now, 15 years later, is claiming their ex-partner lied in court and planted evidence. The judge said it's too late; there's no pressing public interest, and other ways to challenge the conviction exist. Even though some evidence suggested lying did occur, it was deemed insufficient to justify reopening such an old case.
Key Facts
- •David Sturgess (Claimant) applied for permission to bring contempt proceedings against Teresa Crick (Respondent) for interfering with the administration of justice.
- •The alleged contempt related to events between 2002 and 2009, concerning Sturgess's 2009 conviction for offenses including taking indecent photographs of children.
- •Sturgess alleged Crick perjured herself at his criminal trial and planted evidence.
- •Crick did not appear or participate in the hearing.
- •The application was initially made in Swansea County Court and then transferred to the High Court.
Legal Principles
At the permission stage, the applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case of sufficient strength, such that permission can properly be given, provided the public interest so requires.
Ocado Group Plc v McKeeve [2021] EWCA Civ 145 at [69]
Outcomes
The application for permission to bring contempt proceedings was refused.
The court found that the public interest did not require the application to proceed due to staleness of the allegations (15 years), lack of ongoing public resonance, and the availability of alternative avenues for Sturgess to clear his name (appealing the conviction, Criminal Cases Review Commission). The court also considered the strength of each of the five allegations individually and found that none met the threshold for a strong prima facie case, while acknowledging a strong prima facie case existed for one specific perjury allegation (Ground (i)).