Ashley v Sussex Police [2008] EWHC 3151 (QB) (19 December 2008)

Following the fatal police shooting of James Ashley, his family pursued a civil claim for assault and battery, despite the police admitting negligence. The court ruled it was not an abuse of process to seek a verdict on the battery claim for vindication.

Facts

On 15 January 1998, during a police raid on his flat, Mr James Ashley was shot and killed by a police constable (‘PC Sherwood’). At the time, Mr Ashley was naked and unarmed. Mr Ashley’s father and son (‘the claimants’) brought a civil action against the Chief Constable of Sussex Police (‘the defendant’) for damages. The claims included assault and battery, negligence, and misfeasance in public office. The defendant admitted liability for the claim in negligence, which covered all potential financial compensation. However, the defendant disputed the claim for assault and battery, arguing that PC Sherwood had acted in self-defence, believing Mr Ashley posed a threat. The claimants insisted on proceeding with the assault and battery claim, not for additional compensation, but for a public-facing judgment on the lawfulness of the killing, a purpose described as ‘vindication’. The defendant argued this was an abuse of process. The matter was previously heard by the House of Lords, which ruled that pursuing a claim for the sole purpose of vindication was not an abuse of process and remitted the matter back to the High Court.

Issues

Following the House of Lords’ decision, the case returned to the High Court for this judgment. The central issue was whether, in light of new concessions by the defendant, the claim for assault and battery should be allowed to proceed to trial. The defendant argued that a trial was no longer necessary for the claimants’ vindication. This was based on a new admission by the defendant that PC Sherwood’s belief that he needed to act in self-defence was not a ‘reasonable’ belief. The defendant contended that this admission effectively conceded that the test for self-defence in tort was not met, thus establishing battery and making a trial redundant. The claimants argued that these concessions were insufficient and that they were entitled to a full trial to have the facts publicly determined by a judge and to obtain a formal judgment on the unlawfulness of the killing.

Judgment

Sir Michael Tugendhat, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dismissed the defendant’s application to stay the proceedings. The judgment centred on the concept of ‘vindication’ as articulated by the House of Lords in the same case. The judge referenced the speech of Lord Scott in the House of Lords, who had established the legitimacy of the claimants’ cause of action:

“The function of the law is to enable rights to be vindicated and to provide remedies when wrongs are committed… To categorise a legitimate claim as an abuse of process is a contradiction in terms… The claims for assault and battery are legitimate claims. The fact that the claimants will recover no more money by succeeding on them than they will recover on the admitted claim for negligence cannot make them an abuse of process.”

The judge found that the defendant’s late concession—that the officer’s belief was unreasonable—was not a full admission of an unlawful killing. It was a strategic concession designed to avoid a trial on the facts. He determined that the ‘vindication’ sought by the claimants required more than a technical admission of liability; it required a public judicial determination of the facts surrounding Mr Ashley’s death. Allowing the defendant to avoid this through a carefully worded admission would frustrate the purpose of the litigation as endorsed by the House of Lords. Sir Michael Tugendhat concluded:

“In my judgment, the Claimants are entitled, if they wish, to have a finding of fact by a judge on the issue of whether Mr Ashley was unlawfully killed. The concessions which the Defendant now makes go no further than conceding that the Claimants are entitled as a matter of law to a judgment. But the House of Lords has held that the Claimants are entitled to seek not just a judgment, but vindication.”

Therefore, the court held that the claimants had a right to proceed to trial to have the facts heard and ruled upon publicly.

Implications

This decision reinforces the principle established by the House of Lords that a civil claim can legitimately be pursued for non-monetary purposes, such as vindication. It demonstrates that a defendant cannot necessarily prevent a trial by making a late admission of liability that covers the financial claim, particularly in cases of significant public interest involving state conduct. The judgment underscores the role of the civil justice system in providing a public forum for the determination of facts and establishing accountability, separate from the award of damages. It confirms that the right to ‘vindication’ can include the right to a public hearing and a judicial finding on the alleged wrongdoing, not just a paper judgment based on legal concessions.

Verdict: The defendant’s application to stay the proceedings for assault and battery was dismissed, allowing the claimants to proceed to trial.

Source: Ashley v Sussex Police [2008] EWHC 3151 (QB) (19 December 2008)