Rules of procedure should not be rigidly enforced – Supreme Court

3 December 2012 by

courtofsessionRuddy v Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police & Anor [2012] UKSC 57 – read judgment

The Supreme Court has ruled that an individual who claimed to have been assaulted by police officers was entitled to bring an action in the sheriff court (Scotland) seeking  damages at common law and under the Human Rights Act 1998 against the relevant chief constable arising from the officer’s actions.

He was also able to claim damages under the 1998 Act against the chief constable and the Lord Advocate in connection with an allegedly ineffective investigation into the incident.

The following is based on the Supreme Court’s press summary. References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment.

Background facts

The appellant was arrested in September 2004 and taken to a police station in Glasgow. He alleged that he was abused and threatened with violence by the Strathclyde police officers during and after the journey. In 2005 the Procurator Fiscal instructed the Complaints Branch to carry out an investigation into the complaint. In June 2005 she informed the appellant that she was satisfied that the available evidence did not justify criminal proceedings against any police officer. The Complaints Board also concluded that it was unnecessary to take any proceedings for misconduct against the police officers involved.

The appellant raised an action in the Glasgow Sheriff Court. He claimed alleged assault against the Chief Constable, seeking damages at common law and under section 8(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of the substantive obligation on states under Article 3 of the Convention to prevent inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The appellant also sought damages under the same section of the HRA and section 100(3) of the Scotland Act against the Chief Constable and Lord Advocate for this breach.

The Inner House of the Court of Session dismissed the action as incompetent. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it had been competent for him to bring his two Article 3 claims, or either of them; and that he had also been entitled to raise the first claim (of assault) against the Chief Constable and the second claim (breach of the investigative obligation) against the Chief Constable and Lord Advocate together in the same action.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the appeal and returned the case to the Inner House for a hearing of the appeal against the decision of the lower court.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning

Whilst the Supreme Court is always reluctant to interfere with the judgment of the Inner House, its objections to the competency of the two Article 3 claims were unsound in principle. The appellant was not seeking an exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in order to have decisions of the Chief Constable or the Lord Advocate reviewed or set aside. His case in relation to both Article 3 claims was based on allegations of acts or omissions. He was not in other words seeking to have them corrected in order to provide a foundation for his claims. He was instead seeking just satisfaction for the fact that, as he argued, his Convention rights had been breached. The claims were in essence simply those of damages. Judicial review for their determination would have been inept; the essence of his claim was simply one of damages, and judicial review was inappropriate [15 and 18-21]

Nor had his action offended the well-established principle that one pursuer cannot sue two or more defenders for separate causes of action. It was clear that the wrongs which were the subject of the appellant’s claims were separate and were committed at different times by different people. But the appellant was not asking for a decree for the respondents to be found liable in a single lump sum. The objection to the competency of the action was therefore misconceived. [22 and 24 – 25]

It is possible to imagine cases where an objection to competency could be taken on the ground that the pleadings defeat the ends of avoiding undue complexity and keeping good order in litigation. The guiding principle when such an objection is taken is whether the way the action is framed is likely to lead to manifest inconvenience and injustice.  There was no absolute rule one way or the other, so long as the rule which said that it was incompetent for a pursuer to ask for a decree in a lump sum for separate wrongs was not broken. Rules of procedure should, after all, be servants, not masters, in matters of this kind. . In this case the appellant’s two claims, though separate, were interconnected in law and fact, and it would be in the interests of justice and more convenient for them not to be separated. The pleadings were not complex and good order in litigation favours the two claims being heard together. The objection to the competency of the action on this basis was also misconceived. [27-28 and 32 – 33]
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS 

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: