Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1901 (KB)
Paul Bush v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police
26 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 690 (KB)
High Court
Someone tried to get the police chief in trouble for his officers lying. The judge said the chief wasn't responsible for his officers' actions, and there wasn't enough proof that the officers actually lied, so the case was thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Claimant Paul Bush sought to commit the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police for contempt of court under CPR Part 81.
- •The underlying case involved a misfeasance in public office claim against the Chief Constable, alleging malicious threats by DS Jenkins.
- •The contempt application centered on alleged discrepancies in emails and witness statements provided by DS Jenkins and DS Newitt.
- •The Chief Constable was not personally accused of wrongdoing; the claim was based on vicarious liability under s 88 of the Police Act 1996.
- •Three versions of an email from DS Jenkins showed variations, leading the Claimant to allege falsification.
- •The Claimant also alleged DS Newitt falsely claimed to have witnessed the phone call.
- •The Defendant's response highlighted the explanations for the email variations and the lack of evidence supporting the Claimant's allegations.
Legal Principles
Permission is required to bring a contempt of court application under CPR r 81.3(5)(b).
CPR Part 81
Power to commit for contempt of court: Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 14 (up to two years imprisonment).
Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 14
Knowingly signing a false statement of truth is contempt of court.
South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin)
Section 88 of the Police Act 1996 provides for vicarious liability of the Chief Constable for unlawful conduct of constables, but this is limited to civil liability, not contempt of court.
Police Act 1996, s 88
In private party contempt applications for false statements, a strong prima facie case, public interest, proportionality, and adherence to the overriding objective in the CPR must be shown.
Stobart Group Ltd v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564, [44]
Outcomes
Permission to bring the contempt of court application was refused.
The Chief Constable cannot be held vicariously liable for contempt of court under s 88 of the Police Act 1996. Furthermore, the Claimant failed to establish a strong prima facie case of contempt against the officers, lacking sufficient evidence to support the allegations.