Refusal

Phillips v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (CA SJ 4 April)

An action based on false imprisonment and malicious prosecution falls within s9(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 requiring it to be tried by jury unless the court considers that the trial requires a prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation which could not conveniently be made by a jury In the present case, there were 350 pages of medical records and 50 pages of general practitioner notes on which the defence would wish to cross-examine. There would also be extensive reference to both cross-examination and documents from a previous criminal trial. This was a compelling point on the question of convenience. Consideration of material of this kind could more conveniently be done by a judge alone. He could read the documents in advance, or during the trial both in and out of court time, and would be much more able than a jury to identify those passages that were potentially material. It was also preferable to both sides to have a reasoned judgment at the conclusion of the case. Although the judge had come to the right conclusion, his reasoning was flawed in comparing the civil jurisdiction with the criminal jurisdiction which was very different.