Day 165 - 27 Sep 95 - Page 02

     
     1                                 Wednesday, 27th September 1995.
     2
     3   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I have now got -- I am sorry I did not
     4        have it yesterday -- copies of Thorpe v. Chief Constable of
     5        Greater Manchester Police 1989, 1 WLR 665.  I have not
     6        copied the whole of the report because much of it is not
     7        relevant.  I did not bring either the Ballantine case or
     8        the Chancery case from 1895 because it appears on the face
     9        of this judgment in the Court of Appeal that, in essence,
    10        they were concerned more with the question of similar fact
    11        evidence and oppression than with the more general question
    12        of principle, whether discovery should be made which
    13        relates only to cross-examination as to credit.
    14
    15        Can I draw your Lordship's attention, first of all, to the
    16        headnote on page 665?
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    19
    20   MR. RAMPTON:  "The Plaintiff was arrested at a demonstration at
    21        Manchester University and was charged with causing
    22        obstruction of the highway.  His conviction by justices was
    23        quashed by the Crown Court on appeal.  As a result of
    24        complaints by persons other than the plaintiff, there had
    25        been an investigation of the events.  The investigating
    26        officer had opened a file in the respect of the plaintiff's
    27        relationship with two arresting officers.  The plaintiff
    28        brought an action against the chief constable, as the
    29        person" -----
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have, in fact, read the whole authority
    32        overnight, so if you merely note which parts so that
    33        Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris can see what you are relying on.
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  I would say that the account of the decision given
    36        in the holding on page 665 is a fair and accurate summary
    37        of the effect of the judgment so far as it is relevant to
    38        this case.
    39
    40   MS. STEEL:  From paragraph F, you say?
    41
    42   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, F to H, that the relevant part of
    43        Dillon L.J.'s judgment at letter F on 668 and ends with the
    44        statement of principle at letter H on page 669.  I lay
    45        particular emphasis on the passage at the paragraph H to
    46        the bottom of the page.
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:  Of 669?
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:  669, which is the ratio of the decision so far as 
    51        the discovery of documents relevant only to 
    52        cross-examination as to credit and not to any issue in the 
    53        action is concerned.  Then in the judgment of Neill LJ at
    54        page 673 from letter A at the top of the page down to the
    55        end of the paragraph at letter E on that page, before his
    56        Lordship went on to consider similar fact evidence, which,
    57        of course, is not what your Lordship is concerned with in
    58        this particular instance.
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  That is 663?