O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Last updated

O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1952-2022).svg
Court House of Lords
Full case nameO'Brien (Respondent) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police (Appellant)
Decided28 April 2005
Citation(s)[2005] UKHL 26
Transcript(s) Full text of judgment
Case history
Prior action(s)[2003] EWCA Civ 1085
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell
Keywords

O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 was an English evidence law decision of the House of Lords which held that evidence of previous bad behaviour, known as similar fact evidence, may be admitted in civil case proceedings if it is probative of a relevant matter.

Contents

Background

The plaintiff in this case was Michael O'Brien, who had been wrongfully convicted of a murder in Cardiff in 1987. In addition to receiving compensation from the Home Office for the eleven years he spent in prison, O'Brien was seeking aggravated and exemplary damages from South Wales Police for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office. [1]

O'Brien's conviction was based on the "confession" of an associate of his, Darren Hall, who had been with him the night of the murder. The misconduct alleged by O'Brien included that police officers;

O'Brien wished to have evidence admitted that would show that the two police officers leading the investigation against him had led two other cases where similar misconduct had been alleged; the Welsh bomb trial and the murder of Karen Price. [3]

At a case management conference of O'Brien's claim, Judge Graham Jones of the High Court, granted permission to O'Brien to rely on the similar fact evidence. [4] The police appealed this decision unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal and subsequently appealed to the House of Lords.

Judgments

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal.

Lord Bingham noted that,

"Any evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant. Contested trials last long enough as it is without spending time on evidence which is irrelevant and cannot affect the outcome. Relevance must, and can only, be judged by reference to the issue which the court (whether judge or jury) is called upon to decide. As Lord Simon of Glaisdale observed in Director of Public Prosecutions v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729, 756, "Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof ….. relevant (ie. logically probative or disprobative) evidence is evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable"." [5]

Lord Bingham then concluded that evidence must satisfy a two-stage test before being admitted in a civil case. Firstly, it will be legally admissible if it is probative of a relevant matter. Secondly, judges will have to weigh the argument in favour of admitting the evidence against any arguments against admitting it, such as, the evidence relates to a collateral matter, is potentially prejudicial or unduly burdensome. [6] Lord Phillips observed,

"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)." [7]

On the issue of admissibility, Lord Phillips held: "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." [8]

Settlement

South Wales Police settled O'Brien's claims out of court for £300,000 in 2006. The BBC described it as the, "highest pay-out of its kind in a case of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution." [9]

Related Research Articles

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party had no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural justice</span> Concept in UK law

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrates' court (England and Wales)</span> Lower court in the criminal legal system of England and Wales

In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears matters relating to summary offences and some triable either-way matters. Some civil law issues are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2010, there were 320 magistrates' courts in England and Wales; by 2020, a decade later, 164 of those had closed. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

Makin v Attorney General for New South Wales is a famous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the modern common law rule of similar fact evidence originated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Singapore</span> Lower division of national supreme court

The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The other divisions of the high court are the General Division, the Appellate Division, and the Family Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lennie Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann</span> British and South African judge (born 1934)

Leonard Hubert "Lennie" Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann is a retired senior South African–British judge. He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1995 to 2009.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

The legal system of South Korea is a civil law system that has its basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Court Organization Act, which was passed into law on 26 September 1949, officially created a three-tiered, independent judicial system. The revised Constitution of 1987 codified judicial independence in Article 103, which states that, "Judges rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and the law." The 1987 rewrite also established the Constitutional Court, the first time that South Korea had an active body for constitutional review.

Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. Probative is a term used in law to signify "tending to prove". Probative evidence "seeks the truth". Generally in law, evidence that is not probative is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel". A balancing test may come into the picture if the value of the evidence needs to be weighed versus its prejudicial nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Justice</span> One of the Senior Courts of England and Wales

The High Court of Justice in London, known properly as His Majesty's High Court of Justice in England, together with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court, are the Senior Courts of England and Wales. Its name is abbreviated as EWHC for legal citation purposes.

Evidential burden or "production burden" is the obligation to produce evidence to properly raise an issue at trial. Failure to satisfy the evidential burden means that an issue cannot be raised at a court of law.

The role of expert witnesses in English law is to give explanations of difficult or technical topics in civil and criminal trials, to assist the fact finding process. The extent to which authorities have been allowed to testify, and on what topics, has been debated, and to this end a variety of criteria have evolved throughout English case law.

<i>R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis</i>

R v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence. In the case, a majority of the Supreme Court, including the Court's President Lord Phillips and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge reversed an earlier ruling of the High Court of Justice and found that the police force's policy of retaining DNA evidence in the absence of 'exceptional circumstances' was unlawful and a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court declined to offer any specific relief however, recognising that the policy is expected to be subject to legislative scrutiny as Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011.

The failure of a public authority to take into account relevant considerations and the taking of irrelevant ones into account are grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. They are regarded as forms of illegality.

The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.

<i>The Public Prosecution Service v William Elliott, Robert McKee</i>

The Public Prosecution Service v William Elliott and Robert McKee [2013] UKSC 32 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning admissibility of electronic evidence obtained from an electronic fingerprint reader unit that had not been approved by the Secretary of State as required by Article 61(8)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989.

<i>Mahomed v R</i>

Mahomed v R [2011] NZSC 52 was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand concerning the admissibility of propensity evidence against defendants facing criminal prosecution.

References

  1. ↑ O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 at [18].
  2. ↑ O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 at [19].
  3. ↑ O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 at [20]-[24].
  4. ↑ O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2003] EWCA Civ 1085 at [1].
  5. ↑ O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 at [3].
  6. ↑ O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 at [6].
  7. ↑ O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 at [24].
  8. ↑ O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] UKHL 26 at [53].
  9. ↑ "£300,000 pay-out for cleared man". BBC. 12 October 2006. Retrieved 24 November 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.