26.06.2009

Jacqueline Perry QC wins in the Court of Appeal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM CANTERBURY COUNTY COURT

His Honour Judge Simpkiss

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 26/06/2009

Before :

LADY JUSTICE ARDEN

LORD JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON
and

MR JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS

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

Between :

	ALAN ARMSDEN (as Executor of the Estate of RACHAEL CHEESEWRIGHT deceased)	Claimant/ Respondent
	- and -
	KENT POLICE	Defendant / Appellant

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

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

Jacqueline Perry QC and Edward Hutchin (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer) for the Appellants

Edward Faulks QC and Julian Waters (instructed by Harman & Harman) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 26 March 2009

Brief Synopsis

The Court of Appeal reversed the finding by the trial Judge who had decided that the Kent Police were entirely responsible for an accident in which they collided with a car which emerged into their path. The driver of the car, Ms. Cheeswright, ( the ‘deceased’) was killed in the collision. The facts before the court were that the police were answering an emergency call to a potential scene of domestic violence. They were travelling at very high speed along the A.28 which was the main road and had priority to Brissenden Green Lane from where the deceased emerged. The Judge at first instance found that the speed of the police car coupled with the failure to use the siren as the car approached the relevant junction made the Kent Police fully liable for the accident and the death of Ms. Cheesewright.

In a judgment delivered by Burnton LJ, the Court of Appeal held that the major fault for this tragic accident lay with the deceased. She had failed to look properly and carefully when she pulled from the minor road into the major road. Had she looked to her right prior to emerging onto the A.28 she would have seen the lights of the approaching police vehicle and she would have stayed where she was.

However the Court of Appeal did find that the Kent Police bore 40% responsibility for the accident, based upon the fact that the police car was travelling at more than 90 mph around a bend and just 100 metres from the junction. The speed itself was not criticized- after all the police were answering an emergency call and were entitled to arrive as expeditiously as possible. The problem, said the Court of Appeal, was that if the police chose to travel at such a high speed then it was incumbent upon them to inform of their approach by the use of the siren and not simply rely upon their lights, albeit they were flashing. The high speed did create a danger for other road users but that danger was capable of being obviated if the siren was employed. The failure to use the siren in these circumstances rendered the Police liable to some blame, although the greater blame, nevertheless, was that of the deceased.