[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Staples v Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ 1781 (15 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1781.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 1781

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Nicholl)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Thursday, 15th November 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: This is an application by Mr. Franklin Staples for permission to appeal against the judgment of His Honour Judge Nicholl sitting at the Birmingham County Court on 19th June 2001. The applicant had brought a personal injury claim against the Home Office. He alleged assault, that on three separate occasions, overnight on 25th February 1997 and the third occasion being, he says, about 7.30 in the morning, he was assaulted by prison officers while in custody at the Winson Prison in Birmingham. The applicant was in custody in the course of a trial being conducted at the Coventry Crown Court on a charge against the applicant of assault. It is right to say that he was acquitted of that charge at the Coventry Crown Court.
2. The applicant has submitted a written argument in support of his grounds and he has addressed the court orally this morning for about 25 minutes. The central point of his case is that the judge ought not to have believed the evidence of prison officers and medical witnesses who gave evidence at the trial. In his written arguments the applicant says that all the witnesses were discredited, apart from Mr Mullis and Mr. Lowe. Comments are made about omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. The applicant concluded by saying that it was simply unjust, on the evidence, that his claim that he had been assaulted was dismissed. Particular comment is made about the evidence of Dr. Rahman, a doctor who, as Mr. Staples has brought to my attention, says he examined the applicant in the evening. Mr. Staples relies on the fact that the judge found that in certain respects Dr. Rahman's evidence was unsatisfactory. He claimed that a date on a report was correct when it was shown to be incorrect. The applicant seeks evidence of the handwriting of Dr. Rahman to pursue his claim. Particular complaint is also made about the evidence of Mr. Thomas. For reasons which he has given, the applicant submits that the judge should not have believed Mr Thomas's evidence. The applicant has made detailed comments upon the evidence, including matters as to which he says that Dr. Rahman gave no explanation. The applicant concludes that the evidence put forward on behalf of the defendants was incredible.
3. I have considered the written and oral submissions of the applicant. The trial was a long one as cases of this kind go. The judge's judgment runs to 25 pages of transcript. It is detailed and comprehensive. There is every indication that the judge has had detailed regard to the evidence which was called before him. It is for the trial judge to make findings of fact. It is the trial judge who has the opportunity to see the witnesses, assess their credibility, assess the reliability of the evidence they give, including by reference to documents, and it is a rare case where this court is prepared to intervene when a judge has made findings upon credibility in a case of this kind. There is every indication that the judge has considered the weaknesses in the defendants' evidence and has carefully considered that of the applicant. I have been referred, for example, to the passage at page 12E-G of the judgment when the judge is appraising the evidence of Dr. Rahman and Mr. Slaughter. A part of the evidence of Dr. Rahman was rejected, but the judge nevertheless went on to conclude at page 25B:

"... I am quite satisfied that both of them [that is Dr Rahman and Mr Slaughter] did examine him [that is the applicant] and he could not have failed to mention them to Mr. Street in the morning."

4. Dr. Rahman and Mr Slaughter said that they had examined the applicant during the previous evening.
5. Mr. Staples has addressed the court forcefully, though courteously also. I have put to him more than once the difficulty he faces in seeking to reverse findings of fact, plainly carefully made by a trial judge. The judge's conclusion was as follows. It appears at page 26 of the judgment, the last paragraph:

"The burden of proof rests upon Mr. Staples to bring home these allegations, but I am not going to decide this case simply on the burden of proof. I do not believe him. His evidence is largely incredible and conflicts with the objective evidence that I have heard, as well as from those who could have been expected, if they had done something wrong, to be telling untruths to defend themselves. I am quite satisfied that they did not assault him in the way he describes on any of the three occasions, and accordingly his claim fails and will be dismissed."

6. The applicant no doubt feels and I accept feels strongly that his evidence should have been believed and his claim should have succeeded. For the reasons I have given, however, it is not arguable that this court, upon a full consideration of the matter, would reverse the findings of fact of the trial judge. The applicant says that matters would be different if he had access to transcripts of the evidence given. There is every indication that the judge has carefully considered the evidence which was given orally to him at a time when it was fresh in his mind, and he was entitled to come to the conclusions of fact that he did, much though the applicant dislikes those conclusions. For the reasons I have given this application for permission to appeal must be refused.
Order: Application refused.