Chan Sze Shing v. Attorney General and Another

HCA002422/1978

HEADNOTE:

Damages for Wrongful Arrest and Detention of Police Officer by I.C.A.C. - Defence of Justification: Lawful arrest grounded on reasonable suspicion - Duty of Arresting Officer:

- Measure of Damages where plaintiff author of his own misfortune.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Power, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 12 December 1979

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. In this matter the plaintiff Chan Sze Shing sues the Attorney General and Chow Jun Lung for damages allegedly occasioned him by the action of the second defendant in that he "acting on behalf of the Commissioner for the Independent Commission Against Corruption for whom the first defendant is the person designated to be served

The defendants pleaded justification stating that the second defendant had lawfully arrested the plaintiff pursuant to section 10(1) of the I.C.A.C. Ordinance in that the second defendant reasonably suspected the plaintiff of being a person guilty of an offence under section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Cap 201. The defendants accepted that the onus lay upon them to justify the arrest and consequential search and imprisonment.

2. The sequence of events which led to the arrest of the plaintiff commenced on the 7th of June 1977 when a police sergeant, whose name has, by agreement, not been disclosed, made a complaint to the I.C.A.C. Following upon this complaint the informant sergeant gave a statement to Mr. Tso Wai Yan of the I.C.A.C. on the 8th of June 1977 (Exhibit 3A). In this statement he said that his squad was investigating a wounding case which took place on April 17, 1977 and was searching for a person called Ma Sui Ming who was alleged to be one of the eight assailants who had attacked three brothers named Shum with metal water-pipes, knives and clubs. He stated that on the 24th of April Detective Sergeant 6105, Chan Kwok Shing, came to see him and asked him whether some more arrests had to be made in connection with the wounding case which occurred on the 17th of April. The informant sergeant stated that he was, then, still searching for three of the men alleged to be involved, including Ma Sui Ming. He stated that Detective Sergeant 6105 said to him that Ma Sui Ming was his friend and that he hoped that the informant sergeant could give Ma a chance and that he said:

"In a few days, when your squad members are not occupied, let us made an appointment to go together to dinner."

The informant sergeant stated that he gave no reply to Sergeant 6105's request and that no appointment was ever made to go out to dinner. The informant sergeant stated that on the night of the 25th of May he interviewed an informer named Tang Kwok Leung who said to him, "in a very astonishing manner", when the name Ma Sui Ming was mentioned,: "Was it said that you had settled things so that he won't be arrested? Was it said that his home people had given you $2,000. They also said that the sergeant surnamed (name deleted by agreement) had settled the matter. He has freckles on his face. He has a rather long long face. I feel quite surprised that you are now asking me things about Ma Sui Ming". The informant sergeant said that he had denied to the informer that he had been a party to any such transaction and that he then took further steps which proved to be unsuccessful to apprehend Ma Sui Ming. He stated that on the 1st of June 1977 he spoke to Ma's mother, Madam Kwok Hing Lok, at their home and that she said to him:

"Was it said that it was all cleared and there would be nothing? Is it not sufficient to arrest just one?"

He stated that one of his squad member P.C.7157 then said to Madam Kwok:

"Your son took part in hacking people. After the hacking, you want the case to close like that. Is it reasonable? Your son is now a wanted person. As long as he is at large, we will continue to locate him."

The informant sergeant went on to state that on 2nd of June 1977 D.C.789, Tsoi Sui Ping, a member of Detective Sergeant 6105's squad, came to see him and said to him that "Lung Tau", which he said was the nickname of Sergeant 6105, was in hospital and had told him to bring a message to the informant sergeant and that Detective Constable 789 then said:

"He hopes you may give a chance to Ma Sui Ming. I don't know what is the relation between him and Ma Sui Ming. Later I will go to the hospital again to see 'Lung Tau' and ask him clearly why he did so. He said that some other day, when he had completely recovered from illness, he would have a dinner together with your squad."

The informant sergeant stated that he "ambiguously" replied to D.C.789 saying, "Let me see what will happen before making any decision". He stated that on the following day the 3rd of June D.C.789 came to him again and said, "'Lung Tau' was discharged from hospital this morning. He asked you to give him a telephone call". He stated that D.C.789 then used the telephone and put him through to Sergeant 6105 who said to him,

"Ma Sui Ming is a relative of mine. He (Ma) is now helping me do something. I hope you will give him a chance and let him go this time. Some day in the near future, after my recovery, I will invite your squad to dinner."

The informant sergeant stated that he replied:

"You have still not recovered yet. You need a rest. Don't talk so much now."

So much for the statement of the informant sergeant.

3. Mr Tso Wai Yan said that at 9.30 a.m. on the 10th of June 1977, two days after the making of the statement, he received a telephone call from the informant sergeant who told him that Ma had been arrested by D.C.789, D.C.11217 and D.C.1190. D.C.1190 is the number of the plaintiff. He said that the informant sergeant told him the arrest was made outside the Man Lin Theatre in Tsz Wan Shan and that the three arresting officers were squad members of Sergeant Chan. Under cross-examination he said that the informant sergeant had obtained the information about the arrest from an official police record. He indicated that this record would have been made in the Occurrence Book by the Duty Officer.

4. On the 28th of June 1977 Mr Lam Hin Pong, an I.C.A.C. officer, took a statement from the person Ma Sui Ming, who had been mentioned in the informant sergeant's statement, in which Ma said that he had been arrested on the 9th of June at the Man Lin Theatre by two C.I.D. officers and taken to Tsz Wan Shan Police Station. He said that one of the arresting officers was named Tsoi and that he did not know the other one. He denied that he knew Sergeant Chan Kwok Shing and said that he did not know someone had given $2,000 to a policeman for a reward for not arresting him. On the 9th of July 1977, just two days before the date of the trial of the wounding charge, to which Ma Sui Ming had pleaded not guilty, he gave a further statement to Mr Lam in which he made allegations against Sergeant 6105 whose squad had arrested him. In this statement he said:

"I gave a statement to an I.C.A.C. officer on June 28. Because the contents are partly different from the actual facts, I now wish to make a fresh statement with honesty as follows: On April 17 this year, after wounding the 3 SHUM brothers, I went to the house of a friend, CHAN Tak-hing, for hiding. I hoped to be able to keep away from the policeman who wanted to arrest me. I did so on my own initiative. Nobody had advised me to do so. Whilst at Sai Kung, I frequently rang back to my home. On one occasion (I have forgotten the date), when I rang up my mother, she told me that in connection with the incident in which I wounded some people, she had already got some policemen to settle the matter for me. She told me that I need not worry. She also said that those policemen who had settled the matter for me wished to see me. That night I went with my mother and "Uncle Po" to Kam Lung Restaurant, Kowloon City, to meet those policemen. "Uncle Po" lives on the premises of a Chinese medicinal herbs shop in Tsz Wan Shan of which he is the proprietor. (I don't know his full name and address). He is a friend of a neighbour of mine, Mrs Ko. It was this Mrs Ko who introduced "Uncle Po" to my mother, and then through "Uncle Po", my mother came to know those policemen in Tsz Wan Shan. On arrival at Kam Lung Restaurant, we took a table. At a distance of 2 tables from ours were seated 4 Chinese men. They were CHAN Kwok-shing, TSOI (the policeman who arrested me during the past incident) and 2 others whose names I did not know. They were those policemen introduced by "Uncle Po" to my mother to settle the matter for me. They were stationed at Tsz Wan Shan Police Station. After we had taken our seats, CHAN Kwok-shing came over to our table and took a seat. He said, "Don't be afraid. I'll settle this matter for you. I'll remove the record for you. Once your name is removed, it will be all right. Don't return home tonight. Better do so tomorrow." After saying the above, CHAN got back to his own table. After funishing our meals, we left. According to my mother, before this meeting at Kam Lung Restaurant, she and "Uncle Po" had already met somewhere in Kowloon City. (I did not know the exact location). (That was their first meeting). During that meeting, she promised to pay CHAN $2,000 as an inducement so that he would not arrest me but settle the matter for me in connection with the incident in which I wounded the 3 SHUM brothers. To my knowledge, the $2,000 was really given to CHAN Kwok-shing, but I did not know who was the payer and where and when the payment took place. My mother should have known this matter better than I. The next day after I saw CHAN, I returned home. After 3 weeks later, one day (i.e. June 9, the day I was arrested), "Uncle Po" said to my mother that CHAN wanted to see me. About 5 or 6 o'clock she went with "Uncle Po" to CHAN's home at Cheung Sha Wan Police Quarters. I noticed that there was a wounding mark on his face near an eye. He said that it came from a car accident several days ago. He said, "SHUM has reported to the Police that he had seen you stay in your house. Some policemen may therefore go to your house to arrest you. Better let the job be done by my own people. Let me put you under arrest and take you back to the Police station. Don't worry. I'll charge you with a lighter offence. Just bring some money along for bail." So he made a telephone call. I heard him asking someone called Choi Chai to answer the phone call. He then told the answerer to come to his house. Two men soon came. One was surnamed CHOI. I did not know what was the surname of the other one. Meanwhile, my mother and "Uncle Po" left first. They went to Uncle Po's house to wait for my telephone. These 2 men took me up to their private car. We drove past Man Nin Theatre and reached Tsz Wan Shan Police Station. On the way no one alighted from the car. (One need not pass Man Nin Theatre if taking the normal route to that police station). In the police station, another 2 policemen (I did not know their names) assisted in recording my offence. CHOI then took down a statement from me. Afterwards I made a telephone call to Uncle Po's house asking my mother to bring along $500 to bail me out. Earlier, while I was still in CHAN's house, CHAN told me that when appearing in court, I need not be afraid to plead guilty, as the sentence would be very light - being put under supervision at the most. He did not mention that while I was in Court, he would give me help. After my arrest, he and his fokis never visited me. When your (I.C.A.C.) people came to see me for the first time, I was not at home. So I later went to Tsz Wan Shan Police Station to see CHOI and ask whether he had come to my house in order to see me. He said no. So I thought CHAN and his people might suspect that some I.C.A.C. people might be investigating this case. When I gave a statement to the I.C.A.C. for the first time, I did not mention the above facts. My mother told me not to say anything about those facts, because she did not want to involve CHAN Kwok-shing. However, after careful thoughts, I have decided to tell the truth to the I.C.A.C. I have never said to any person (including those policemen) anything about the I.C.A.C. conducting investigations into this matter."

5. Thereafter the I.C.A.C. continued to make investigations regarding the alleged payment of money to Sergeant Chan but nothing further of significance was uncovered. Ma Sui Ming's mother, Madam Kwok Hing Lok, denied knowing of any payment as did Madam Ko and Lam Yuet Po who was believed to be the person referred to as "Uncle Po" in Ma's statement. It is common ground that at some time prior to the arrest of the plaintiff on 14th October Ma Sui Ming retracted his statement that a bribe had been given.

6. On the 13th of October 1977 the second defendant, an investigating officer in the I.C.A.C., on the instructions of Mr Thomas Roger Batty, a section head in the I.C.A.C., carried out the arrest of the plaintiff which led to this action. The plaintiff and the second defendant and a Chief Inspector Lee Yiu Fai all gave evidence as to what took place at the time of the arrest of the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff said that the second defendant said to him

"Now I arrest you D.C.1190 Chan Sze Shing in connection with the case which took place in May 1977 in which you together with other persons accepted an advantage of $2,000 from a person called Ma Sui Ming."

The plaintiff said that the second defendant then cautioned him and asked him whether he had anything to say to which he replied that he did not know that person. He said that he asked him when in May and where it took place and that the second defendant told him that it was not necessary to tell him when in May and that he would tell him when he went back with him to his office. The plaintiff said that he further told the second defendant that he only became a detective on the 6th of June and that in May he was attached to the Emergency Unit of Kowloon East.

8. Inspector Lee said that he was present at the arrest and that the second defendant said to the plaintiff

"I am now arresting you because in May this year you received $2,000 from a person known as Ma Sui Ming."

He said that at that stage the plaintiff asked questions as to the date in May and denied knowing any Ma Sui Ming and said that he had only been transferred to the C.I.D. in June.

9. The second defendant did not take any issue with these two versions except to say that he told the plaintiff that he arrested him on suspicion of having been a party to the receipt of $2,000 in relation to a wounding case in May.

10. It is clear from the plaintiff's evidence that he understood that he was being arrested for complicity in the receipt, together with others, of $2,000 from Ma Sui Ming in May. The evidence does not clearly establish the exact form of words used however I am satisfied that the second defendant told the plaintiff when arresting him that he was arresting him on suspicion of having been involved with others in the receipt of $2,000 in May from Ma Sui Ming in relation to a wounding case.

11. The plaintiff was, after arrest, taken to his home where searches were carried out and then taken to the offices of the I.C.A.C. at Hutchison House. According to the evidence of the second defendant and Mr Leung Kok, another I.C.A.C. officer, the plaintiff made a statement in which he said

"On June 6 this year I was transferred from E.U./KE to Tsz Wan Shan. The first three days after I was posted to Tsz Wan Shan CID Unit was a period for learning. Several days later I was put into the squad and carried out duties in the Action Unit. At first I worked in Sgt 6105's team. Owing to the Sergeant being ill, DC789 was temporarily appointed as officer i/c of the team. One evening he said that he had received information and had to go to Man Nin Theatre in Tsz Wan Shan to make arrests in connection with a fighting incident. So he and DC7229 went there together to make the arrests. He also instructed me and DC11217 to wait at the police station. About 6, 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening, I waited at the police station together with DC11217. After waiting for about 45 minutes, I saw DC789 and DC7229 took a Chinese male back to the police station. This man was about 20 and dressed like a hooligan. I remember that he was later charged with causing annoyances. All night I and DC11217 stayed at the police station assisting in finger-printing and other official work. As to the job of "interrogating" that youth, I had never taken part. Later that night, DC789 told Pol.159 to write down that the four of us went together to arrest the youth. He also told the three of us that this job was supposed to have been done by the three of us. Next, he told me to make entries in the Note Book, mentioning that I took part in the arrest. I cannot remember clearly whether I made entries in the Note Book in conformity with his instructions. 789 told me to enter in the book that I took part in the arrest. This was contrary to the truth. Nevertheless, in this incident, I never accepted any money. Neither have I heard, nor do I know, whether DC789, DC7229 and DC11217 have accepted any money from that man surnamed Ma as a reward."

I was urged by Mr Eddis, who appeared for the plaintiff, to accept the evidence of the plaintiff as regards this statement in which he said that he had never told the second defendant that:

"Later that night, DC789 told Pol.159 to write down that the four of us went together to arrest the youth. He also told the three of us that this job was supposed to have been done by the three of us. Next, he told me to make entries in the Note Book, mentioning that I took part in the arrest. I cannot remember clearly whether I made entries in the Note Book in conformity with his instructions. 789 told me to enter in the book that I took part in the arrest. This was contrary to the truth."

I have carefully considered all of the matters which were raised and cogently argued by Mr Eddis with regard to this statement. I find myself, nonetheless, quite satisfied that the plaintiff did voluntarily relate all of the matters contained therein to the I.C.A.C. officers. I reject entirely his version that the statement was concocted by the I.C.A.C. officers and that he signed it without being fully aware of its contents.

12. It is clear from the evidence of the second defendant and Mr Batty that he was acting under orders when he arrested the plaintiff and that the decision to make the arrest was taken by Mr Batty. The real question for my determination is whether Mr Batty, acting on the information which he had available to him, reasonably suspected the plaintiff on being a party to the receipt of $2,000 from Ma Sui Ming.

13. Mr Batty said that at the time when he made the decision the information upon which it was based was contained in the statement of the informant sergeant (Exhibit 3), the telephone information from the informant sergeant as to the numbers of the arresting officers, and the statements of Ma Sui Ming. The statement of the plaintiff clearly played no part in his decision as this was made only after he had been arrested. Mr Batty gave evidence that the retraction by Ma Sui Ming of his second statement was a further element which he bore in mind when deciding to arrest the plaintiff. He said that he believed the second statement to be true and considered that pressure had been brought to bear on Ma to make the retraction. He said, in evidence, that there were three basic elements in making up his mind to arrest which were

"First, the statement by the informant sergeant. Second, the information supplied by Ma. Third, Ma's subsequent retraction of his second statement."

14. He went on to say that:

"Dealing with the first we had evidence that Sergeant Chan and his team had made improper approaches to the officer investigating the wounding case and information that $2,000 had been paid by or on behalf of Ma to police officers to lessen the effects of his criminal involvement in that assault case. At that time shortly after we learnt that the plaintiff was a member of a team which had arrested Ma outside the Man Lin Theatre, we then moved to the second statement of Ma in which he said that improper meetings had taken place at a restaurant and at Sergeant Chan's home. Ma was able to provide details about Sergeant Chan such as his name, nickname and the fact that he had an injury which it was difficult to believe he could have found out about if he had not met Sergeant Chan. We had evidence that Sergeant Chan was aware of Ma's criminal involvement in the wounding case and it followed that any meeting which took place between Sergeant Chan and Ma prior to Ma's arrest must have been improper. We had reliable information from the informant sergeant that police records showed that the plaintiff was a member of a team of three police officers who had arrested Ma outside the Man Lin Theatre. Ma told us, and I could see no reason to disbelieve him, that in fact he was not arrested outside the theatre but at Sergeant Chan's home. He also told us that en route from Sergeant Chan's home to Tsz Wan Shan Police Station the arresting officers had driven him past the Man Lin Theatre and that it was not on a direct route between Sergeant Chan's home and the police station. It strikes me as obvious that the arrest could not be shown to have taken place at Sergeant Chan's home. There must be some reason why those effecting the arrest thought it necessary to say it occurred outside Man Lin Theatre. It also struck me as being beyond coincidence that the arrest was carried out by Sergeant Chan's team and that they were the team against whom suggestions of impropriety had been made in April or May. Suspicion, therefore, fell on the whole of Sergeant Chan's team. The 'cover up' or assistance to Ma was continuing by Sergeant Chan in early June and at the time of the arrest. It is fair to say that our information or records showed that the plaintiff was not posted to Tsz Wan Shan Police Station until the 6th of June but it seemed a reasonable conclusion that even if he was not there at that time he must have been aware of the improprieties of his colleagues and therefore have information about the corrupt solicitation and have aided and abetted the fruition of the enterprise."

Mr Batty said that he accepted that the plaintiff took no part in the initial solicitation but that he had concluded that because the plaintiff took part in the concocted arrest he must have known about the solicitation of the bribe or could, quite reasonably, be suspected of knowing.

15. Mr Eddis submitted that the defence had failed to justify the arrest because whatever suspicion Mr Batty might have had was not coupled with evidence that any crime had taken place. He submitted that it was a gross abuse of right to arrest a person when it could not be proved that the crime for which he was being arrested had been committed and that the arrest was carried out at a time when Mr Batty had suspicion of the commission of an offence which was unbacked by any evidence which he could produce in court. Mr Eddis submitted that mere suspicion had never been a proper basis upon which to carry out an arrest.

16. Both Mr Graham, who appeared for the defence, and Mr Eddis referred to and relied upon the case of Dumbell v. Roberts and Others (1944) 1 ALL 326. I am satisfied that the law is correctly set out in the following passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Scott, at 329:

I am respectfully satisfied that the Learned Lord Justice correctly and succinctly states the law in the two passages which I have underlined.

17. Firstly there is a duty upon an investigator before deciding to carry out an arrest to make all presently practicable enquiries from persons accessible who are likely to be able to answer those enquiries.

18. Secondly the proper enquiries having been made the decision to arrest should only be taken if there are grounds which, in the particular circumstances, really justify the entertainment of a reasonable suspicion.

19. I must firstly then determine whether all presently, practicable enquiries were carried out. It was submitted generally that, as regards the information contained in the statement of the informant sergeant, the telephone message from him and the statement of Ma Sui Ming, it was wrong for Mr Batty to have acted upon it without making enquiries, beyond those which were undertaken, as to its veracity. The enquiries which were undertaken included the taking of statements from persons, other than police officers, who were mentioned therein. As regards the official record from which the informant sergeant obtained his information as to the members of the police party which arrested Ma Sui Ming it was specifically put to Mr Batty that further enquiries could have been made as to its veracity. He replied that this suggestion was totally impractical. It was common ground that at this time, mid-1977, relations between the I.C.A.C. and the R.H.K. Police Force were at a very low ebb indeed. A person investigating an allegation of corruption in which several police officers appeared to be involved would, I am satisfied, have had to tread very carefully when making enquiries.

20. It is certainly so that no one can be arrested unless there is reasonable suspicion that he has committed an offence sufficient to justify that arrest. However, an investigator having come into possession of information giving rise to reasonable suspicion is clearly not required to jeopardize his whole investigation by pressing forward, thereafter, in the pursuit of confirmatory information where such further enquiry would be likely to alert the suspects and render the whole investigation nugatory. Such conduct would be foolhardy and, indeed, against the public interest. What Lord Justice Scott referred to in Dumbell's case, at 329, as "the double-sided interest of the public in the liberty of the individual as well as in the detection of crime" must be borne in mind in this regard. What the investigator is required to do, as the Learned Lord Justice said, is to make "all presently, practicable enquiries".

21. In the circumstances of the present case I am satisfied that all presently, practicable enquiries were made and that Mr Batty was entitled to rely upon the information which came from the informant sergeant and Ma Sui Ming. Whether that information was sufficient to give rise to suspicion justifying an arrest is a matter to which I now turn.

22. In this regard I must determine whether this information provided grounds which, in the particular circumstances, really justified the entertainment of a reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff had been involved with others in the receipt of $2,000 in May from Ma Sui Ming in relation to a wounding case.

23. The enquiry of the Court is not as to the extent of the admissible evidence existing at the time of the arrest but as to whether or not there were grounds really justifying the entertainment of a reasonable suspicion.

24. One of the submissions made by Mr Eddis as to the information contained in the statement and the telephone message from the informant sergeant was that Mr Batty failed to exercise the degree of caution demanded by ordinary commonsense when approaching it. It was urged in this regard that both Mr Batty and Mr Tso had failed to take into account the possibility that the informant sergeant was actuated by malice springing out of rivalry existing between his squad and that of Sergeant 6105. This matter was put to Mr Tso and he said that he had raised it with the informant sergeant when taking the statement. The possibility of the existence rivalry between the 2 squads was also put to Mr Batty who indicated that he had considered it and discounted it. I am satisfied that Mr Batty did take this possibility into account and I reject the suggestion that he failed to exercise proper caution in this regard.

25. One of the submissions made by Mr Eddis regarding the statement of Ma Sui Ming was that in the circumstances obtaining Mr Batty gave weight far beyond that which could reasonably and properly be ascribed thereto. It was pointed out:

26. In such circumstances Mr Eddis submitted that, on any reasonable assessment, an investigator should have ascribed no real weight to it at all and should have regarded it as being incapable of raising even suspicion.

27. This was certainly not the view taken by Mr Batty. He said that the facts contained in the statement, particularly those concerning Sergeant 6105, were such as to satisfy him that it was truthful. He said that while he did consider that Ma knew more than he was telling he was, nonetheless, satisfied that the statement was, in essence, true. Indeed, as to the retraction by Ma Sui Ming of his second statement he said that this, far from making him doubt the essential truthfulness of that statement, strengthened him in the view that it was true.

28. I find myself unable to agree with Mr Eddis's submission in this regard.

29. Having carefully read the statement and considered the evidence of Mr Batty I am satisfied that he was, despite the matters set out above, entitled to approach it as he did.

30. When I consider the information that was available to Mr Batty prior to the arrest I have no doubt that there were grounds really justifying the entertainment of a reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff was a party to the receipt of a bribe.

31. I am satisfied that the second statement of Ma Sui Ming, the statement and telephone message from the informant sergeant provided information giving grounds justifying the entertainment of reasonable suspicion:

As I am satisfied that Mr Batty did have reasonable suspicion that the plaintiff had been party to the receipt of a bribe and that the arrest was lawful the plaintiff's claim must be dismissed.

32. In case another Court might take a view different to mine as to the lawfulness of the arrest of the plaintiff I consider I should state what damages I would have awarded had I reached the conclusion that the arrest was not lawful. I am satisfied, despite the denials by the plaintiff, that approaches were made to him by D.C.789 to falsify his notebook and that he failed to report them to the proper authorities. I am satisfied that he was well aware that D.C.789 intended to deceive those in authority as to the part the plaintiff had played in the arrest of Ma Sui Ming and that the plaintiff by his failure to report this matter was not only seriously in neglect of his duty but was also acquiescing in the furtherance of the deception. Had the plaintiff made a full report of these improper approaches by D.C.789 I have no doubt that there would have been a police enquiry into this matter. I find myself unable to take the view urged upon me by Mr Eddis that even if such an enquiry had been undertaken it is unlikely that knowledge of it would have come to the I.C.A.C. Had such an enquiry been undertaken I am satisfied that it is most unlikely that the plaintiff would ever have been arrested by the I.C.A.C. I am satisfied that he was, to this extent, as was submitted by Mr Graham, the author of his own misfortune. Had I found the arrest to be unlawful, I would not, in such circumstances, have been prepared to award more than a nominal amount of damages. Plaintiff to pay Defendant costs. Costs to be taxed

Representation:

F. Eddis (Johnson, Stokes & Masters) for plaintiff

S. P. Graham, Senior Crown Counsel, for both defendants