KD v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HAMPSHIRE [2005] EWHC 2550 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

PORTSMOUTH COUNTY COURT

[2005] EWHC 2550 (QB)

Case No Case No: PO 209565

Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Between

KDClaimant

CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HAMPSHIREDefendant

JOHN HULL

Part 20Defendant

Before

Mr Justice Tugendhat

KD in Person

Geoffrey Weddell (instructed by Roger Trencher, Force Solicitor, Hampshire

Constabulary) for the Defendant

James Burton (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker) for the Part 20 Defendant

Hearing dates: 1, 2,3,4,7 November 2005

[1]Mr Justice Tugendhat : The Claimant claims damages for assault (technically battery) and for harassment. The Defendant is the Chief Constable of Hampshire. He is not alleged to be personally at fault. The Claim is against him on the basis that he is vicariously liable for the acts of one of his officers, DC Hull, who has since retired. Mr Hull is not named as a defendant to the claim, but he is a defendant to the proceedings brought by the Defendant under CPR Part 20. By these proceedings the Defendant claims an indemnity against Mr Hull in respect of any damages costs or interest ordered to be paid by the defendant to the Claimant. The gist of the complaint, in the Claimant's own words, is sexual harassment and invasion of privacy.

[2]In January 1998 the Claimant's young daughter was alleging that she had been raped and beaten by the Claimant's former partner ("ND"). Mr Hull was the police officer who interviewed the Claimant in the course of an investigation into those allegations. The Claimant alleges that in the course of that investigation Mr Hull required her to answer questions, which included substantial and intimate detail about the Claimant's life with her former partner. The information she gave was recorded in statements, taken and written down by Mr Hull. It is her case that the statements include details of her sexual conduct, which had no relevance to the investigation of the allegations by the daughter, and which were elicited and recorded to satisfy Mr Hull's prurient interest. It is further alleged that Mr Hull asked the Claimant a number of questions relating to her personal and sexual affairs, in addition to those which were recorded in the statements, that he visited her at home and made telephone calls to her at home for personal discussions about his or her private life unrelated to the investigation, that he touched her sexually, made sexual remarks to her, followed or stalked her in public places, and conducted himself in other respects in a manner which amounted to harassment or assault or both.

[3]Mr Hull denies all allegations of harassment, impropriety and assault. His case is that he took a statement containing information, that the information was volunteered to him by the Claimant, and that any visiting, or other conduct complained of, was proper and reasonable for the purpose of informing her of, or discussing with her, matters relating to the investigation, or other matters which she herself raised with him.

[4]The investigation had two complicating factors. One was that the first rape and early abuse complained of by the daughter allegedly took place while the family was living in Jersey, which is a separate jurisdiction, and that by the time the investigation started ND was living in the Republic of Ireland. In addition Mr Hull says that some of the contacts between himself and the Claimant were the result of requests by her for assistance from him in other matters, such as an incident when her car was stolen, and recovered by police in London. THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS

[5]The damage the Claimant alleges includes anxiety, distress, pain and injury, injury to feelings and other loss and damage. It is alleged that she has developed a depressive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the matters complained of. Particulars of these injuries are set out in the reports of Dr Plant MBChB FRCPsych DPM LMCC FRCPV, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 8th May 2002 and 21st August 2002 which are annexed to the claim. There is added by way of amendment a claim that the Claimant is vulnerable on the open labour market and has lost earning capacity. There are no particulars of lost earnings. In addition there is a claim for aggravated and exemplary damages.

[6]The Defence is dated 28th January 2003. It is said that the Claimant volunteered the contents of the statements taken by Mr Hull of which she complains, and that none of these was recorded for any reason other than as potential evidence in an ongoing investigation which was at the time in its initial stages. It is denied that Mr Hull asked the improper questio ns pleaded. It is denied that any visit he made to the Claimant was without prior appointment or that the purpose of any visit by him was to discuss private matters. All allegations of impropriety are denied. So too are all allegations of damage. In particular, while it is accepted that the Claimant may be suffering as she alleges, the case against her is that, if she is, then that was caused not by her contacts with Mr Hull, but by what she says was done to her by ND.

[7]The Part 20 claim is dated 11th August 2003. The defence to that claim is dated 16th January 2004. The defence to the Part 20 claim is that everything that Mr Hull did was either appropriate to the investigation he was conducting or in response to the Claimant's requests for assistance.

[8]The proceedings have been somewhat delayed. On 20th August 2003 a trial window commencing 1st March 2004 was ordered, but that was vacated on 6th January 2004. At that stage Mr Hull had not yet served his Defence. On 5th June 2004 a trial window was ordered for 21st March 2005. That was vacated on 21st December 2004 and the present trial date fixed then.

[9]Whilst the Claimant was represented by solicitors until about two weeks before the trial, when the matter came on before me she was representing herself, with the assistance of her husband, as McKenzie Friend. I was informed that funding had been withdrawn by the Legal Services Commission. I was also informed that there was an appeal pending against this decision, and there was some discussion at the start of the trial, very properly initiated by Mr Weddell who appeared as counsel for the Defendant, as to whether the trial should proceed. But the Claimant made clear that she wished the matter to proceed, as did Mr Hull who was represented by Mr Burton of counsel.

[10]In the meantime, on 16th September 2004 the Claimant had attended an interview with Dr Reveley MA MB B CH FRC Psych, a consultant psychiatrist instructed on behalf of the Defendant. Dr Plant had concluded that if the Claimant's account of the police interviews is correct this is likely to have been traumatic for her leading to the development of a Depressive Disorder, and the experience of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Dr Reveley on the other hand concluded that it was not psychiatrically plausible to suggest that the Claimant developed any new PTSD symptoms, or any psychiatric conditions, as a result of her contact with Mr Hull. Following a discussion on 29th November 2004 the two doctors concluded that they wished to rely on their opinions expressed in their previous reports.

[11]Dr Plant has not attended to give evidence at this hearing. The Claimant relies on his written reports. By agreement between the parties, Dr Plant's reports are evidence in the case.

[12]For the purposes of these proceedings the Claimant made two written statements. The first is dated 12th December 2003 and the second 30th January 2004. In the second statement the Claimant states that her first statement was based upon a series of meetings she had with solicitors before she had had access to all the documents which were served upon her solicitors on 14th November 2003. She says that she had been given them on 24th November 2003 but had not had a chance to go through them in detail before finalising the witness statement dated 12th December. In the statement dated 30th January 2004 she refers to the statement she had made on 14th August 1998. She confirms that she stands by that statement, and adds that she would obviously be much more specific about events and dates in August 1998 when matters were fresher in her mind. THE STATEMENTS IN THE RAPE INVESTIGATION

[13]The police investigation of the daughter's allegations started in about January 1998 when the daughter was aged sixteen. She was born in 1981. The Claimant and her children were living in Hampshire at this time, having come there from Jersey in 1996. On 14th January 1998 WPC Colebrooke interviewed the daughter. The following day the daughter was examined medically and the findings were consistent with her allegations. The daughter was interviewed jointly by WPC Colebrooke and a social worker. She complained that ND beat her and her sister and brother, who were born in 1986 and 1987. This started when she was aged 8, that is in 1989, some three months after ND moved in to live with the Claimant. She described an incident when she was raped by ND when she was nine. She was lying on her back on the bathroom floor. When she told him to stop, that it was hurting her, he smacked her round the face and told her to shut up or he would kill her. He held her hands and he put his hand over her eyes. When he had finished he smacked her in the face and got up and walked out. She said that he raped her quite a lot of times in Jersey, about three times a week. It happened when the Claimant was out at work, but she could not tell anyone. They all moved to Portsmouth when she was ten. She said ND still beat her and raped her at their house in Portsmouth, more frequently than in Jersey, until she was twelve. Then he stopped raping her, but continued to beat her and her brother and sister, put knives to their throats and other such violent conduct. When she was twelve she moved back to Jersey to live with her father for about two years, returning to Portsmouth to live with her mother again when she was about fifteen.

[14]The investigation was assigned to Mr Hull, and he wrote the five statements which are the subject of complaint in the present proceedings. They are dated 26th February, 27th February, 2nd March, 10th March and 11th March. The handwritten versions contain corrections initialled by the Claimant and are signed by her. They were later typed up, read to her by him, and approved by her. In their typed versions they run to the following lengths: six pages, five pages, ten pages, nine pages and four pages. Those statements include accounts by the Claimant of sexual conduct between herself and her former partner set out in a detail which might be appropriate if each of the acts recounted was the subject of a complaint by the Claimant against her former partner alleging a sexual offence committed by him. The Claimant has made many allegations against her former partner for acts of violence, some of which she says were associated with or followed sexual conduct between them. But the sexual relationship between them was a consensual one which lasted some time and she has never made a complaint against ND for his sexual conduct towards her. That conduct was entirely consensual. Nor at any material time did she ask the police to investigate any complaint by her against ND for violence, although there has been a subsequent investigation.

[15]The statement dated 26th February 1998 is in chronological form. The first page mentions her problems as a child, briefly describes her marriage and gives the dates of birth of her children. It records that her marriage broke up after she was raped by the fifteen year old son of a friend of hers. The next page deals with her work and how she met ND. The whole of the third page is a description of the start of her relationship with ND. It includes the following passage: "The following morning I woke up when the alarm clock went off. I said to ND 'Are you going to give me a cuddle?' He said 'As long as that's all you want'. I started kissing him and he became aroused and I performed oral sex on him after which he became angry with me and said 'It's time for you to go. I've got football' and I went home. Following that event ND did not go into the shop again for three weeks and he ignored all my phone calls. That was something I found painful as I knew that I had been in love with him from the moment I saw him".

[16]The whole of the fourth page is an account of her relationship with and feelings for ND. It contains no reference to sex or violence. The fifth page cont inues the account of their relationship. Five of the twenty typed lines describe a consensual sexual encounter in terms as detailed as the one cited above. That encounter became violent, and the Claimant describes him slapping her hard around the face, punching her upper arms and grabbing her round the throat. The remaining four lines of that page, and the first five of the next page, describe a further sexual encounter between the Claimant and ND in terms as explicit as the first one. There is no reference at all to violence in that encounter. The remainder of the page recounts what ND told the Claimant about his childhood, including descriptions of abuse of ND, both violent and sexual, by other men. That ends the statement.

[17]The statement of 27th February 1998 is similar in structure. The first and second pages describe the Claimant's day to day life with ND. There is a description on the second page of ND slippering the Claimant's younger daughter and hitting and kicking her son. The third page is filled by descriptions of two consensual sexual encounters between the Claimant and ND, each as explicit as the first. The second is one of buggery as to which the Claimant states:

"I went along with his wishes because I loved him and wanted to please him"

. She describes a very active daily sex life, with incidents about every three weeks when he would beat her after having sex, following which he would be remorseful. The fourth and fifth pages consist of a description of a row between the Claimant and ND during which he brandished a knife in front of her and the children, he put his hand through a window, placed her head by the broken window, and threatened her with a knife in her back so that she should say nothing to two police officers who arrived on the scene. The last three lines describe the Claimant and ND making up in bed. In this instance the description of their acts is not sexually explicit.

[18]The statement of 2nd March 1998 starts with the words:

"This statement is a continuation of the statement I made on 27th February 1998 which was curtailed due to time constraints and my emotional state at the time of its conclusion"

. The rest of the first page and the top of the second contain a description of an incident when her son had wet his bed, following which ND smacked him and rubbed his face in the urine. Half of the page is then devoted to a description of two further consensual sexual encounters between the couple, each in explicit detail. Neither is related to any allegation of beating. The last four lines of the page refer to the daughter for the first time (other than when her date of birth is given). The incident described is one in the night when the Claimant woke up hearing her daughter and found that ND was not in bed. The couple had an argument but it is not stated that ND had been with the daughter. Pages three to eight of the statement describe violent quarrels between the couple. She slapped him in public and he punched her, they were both arrested and bound over to keep the peace for twelve months. Her GP referred her to a psychiatrist who, she states, told her that she was perfectly normal. The Claimant describes their financial troubles in the business they then ran together. She then describes an incident when he took hold of her head and smashed her face into the glass counter, causing it to shatter. The police were called to this incident also. There then follows a description of an incident when ND hit the Claimant with a saucepan, and another when he threw her downstairs. On the seventh page she describes how they came to be declared bankrupt, how ND went to live in Portsmouth after his father died, and how "still being in love with him" she would travel to visit him every two weeks. On the eighth page the description continues, followed by an explicit description of consensual sex between them, after which he beat the Claimant and grabbed her throat. The ninth and last pages describe ND punishing the Claimant's son by putting him in a dog collar, and then beating her, head butting her and grabbing her throat.

[19]The statement of 10th March 1998 follows a similar pattern. On the first page she describes her daily life. There is a mention of her daughter then aged 12, but only to say that she was shy and would always lock the bathroom door if she had a bath. The second and third pages contain a brief but explicit description of consensual sex followed by him punching her, hitting her head repeatedly against the wall, and headbutting her. There is then an account of ND's relationship with his mother. On the fourth page there is an explicit description of consensual sex between the couple, followed by a description of their lives and relationship. On the fifth page there is a description of ND punching the Claimant and banging her head against the wall. The sixth to ninth pages describes their daily lives, including rows, in one of which ND held her head under very hot water from the tap, hit her and kicked her.

[20]The final statement of 11th March 1998 is again to the same pattern. The first page describes the couple splitting up and coming together and making up in bed. The description is not explicit. The second page describes their life together, including one incidence of violence when he threw her downstairs. On the third page the Claimant states she has not seen ND since June 1996. She describes how, in November 1997, the daughter told her "of an incident when she was in the bathroom in Jersey when ND had pulled the towel from her". The Claimant states that she did not believe the daughter, but that she rang ND in Dublin. He told her not to believe her children, that he was married and that his wife had an eleven year old daughter. She has not spoken to him since.

[21]There is a contact sheet prepared by the police when investigating the Claimant's complaint against Mr Hull. She made this by telephone on 17th July 1998. That sheet summarises the records of numerous telephone calls, and visits, between February and July 1998. The date, time and length of these are taken from contemporary police documents. It is common ground that there were a number of visits by Mr Hull to the Claimant's home. These contacts ended just after the Claimant made a complaint to the police.

[22]On 1st August 1998 ND was seen by the Claimant in a nightclub in Portsmouth, arrested on suspicion of rape and interviewed the next day by DC Butcher. He was informed that in five written statements the Claimant had alleged that he had been violent, but that she was not making a specific complaint regarding that. He admitted violence towards the Claimant, although he said it was on both sides. He denied having had sex with the daughter whether in Jersey or in Portsmouth. He admitted chastising the children, but not improperly. He was released on bail to November 1998. It was considered that the Hampshire police could not charge ND with the Jersey rape, and there was insufficient evidence of rape in Portsmouth. THE DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY

[23]On 23rd July 1998 a letter was written to Mr Hull informing him that a complaint had been made by the Deputy Chief Constable against him arising from the complaint made by the Claimant.

[24]On 14th August 1998 the Claimant made the first of two witness statements prepared for the purposes of the disciplinary proceedings which arose out of that letter. A number of other statements were prepared by other witnesses for the purposes of those disciplinary proceedings. The Claimant made a second witness statement for that purpose on 16th February 1999.

[25]On 28th April 1999 the charge against Mr Hull was formulated as follows: "Offence of which member is accused Discreditable Conduct contrary to Regulation 5 paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Police (discipline Regulations) 1985 Particulars of the alleged offence……. That you, between the 25th February and 22nd July 1998 acted in a manner reasonably likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the Force in that as the officer in charge of an investigation into an allegation of rape made by [the daughter], you made excessive contact with her mother [the Claimant], and obtained five detailed statements from her which contained sexually explicit evidence which was unnecessary and irrelevant to the investigation causing her distress".

[26]As originally formulated the particulars of the offence included (before the words "and obtained five detailed statements") the words "behaved inappropriately". These words were deleted by amendment in November 1999. The effect of this amendment was to remove from the scope of the disciplinary proceedings the allegations of assault which the Claimant had made.

[27]What she said on 14th August 1998 is in summary as follows. The father of all three children was her first husband, whom she married in February 1981. They separated in 1987 and were subsequently divorced.

[28]In 1991 the Claimant met ND, with whom she commenced a relationship which lasted until 1996 when they finally separated. She states that during this relationship ND frequently displayed violent and cruel behaviour towards herself and occasionally to her son.

[29]During 1997 the behaviour of her daughter altered significantly and she attended counselling sessions with a therapist. It was during these sessions that her daughter disclosed that she had been abused by ND. This was reported to the police, who commenced the investigation by interviewing the daughter as recounted above. The Claimant was made aware that she would be required to make a witness statement to the police.

[30]She states that on Thursday 26th February 1998 she was visited at home by Mr Hull. He interviewed her and took a written statement over a period of at least two hours. The interview took place in her lounge with her sitting on one two seater settee and he sitting on another. Towards the end of this interview she became upset and started to cry. She states that Mr Hull then moved seats and sat next to her on the settee and said, "You need a cuddle", put his arms around her and cuddled her as a friend would. She said that this made her feel uncomfortable and she did not think it was professional. But she thought he was trying to make her feel better and did not try to stop him. The statement was not completed during that visit.

[31]On 27th February 1998 Mr Hull visited her again at her home and took a further statement. She says that whilst interviewing her he asked her to describe in detail certain sexual acts that took place including anal sex. She states that she did not understand why she had to describe these matters as they did not form part of any criminal allegations that were being made against ND. Talking about these acts in detail made her feel uncomfortable but she assumed Mr Hull was an experienced officer doing what he had to do. During this interview she became upset again and again he cuddled her saying things like "It's OK now" and "You'll be OK". At the end of this interview he told her that he felt like crying as, of all the statements he had ever taken, she was describing some of the worst events. This interview lasted for about two hours.

[32]On Monday 2nd March 1998 Mr Hull again visited her at home to interview her. This is her birthday. In this statement of August 1998 she states that during this interview, which lasted several hours, he asked her to describe details of sexual acts. This did not seem right to her, but she assumed he knew what he was doing. The sexual acts described involved herself and ND. As she described them she felt as though she was back reliving them and became very upset. He again cuddled her as she cried. She states that her make up smeared and ran and his shirt was smeared with it. He also wiped her eyes.

[33]She states that on Tuesday 10th and Wednesday 11th March 1998 he visited her home again and interviewed her. Each time he was with her for a couple of hours taking the statement and each time he cuddled her as she became upset. These statements were completed on 11th March 1998.

[34]She states that she did not want him to cuddle her, and did not think he was acting in a professional way, but she thought that he was trying to behave like a friend would by putting his arms around her and stroking her back. She also thought it was unnecessary that she talk about sexual experiences in such detail, as there was no suggestion that she was making any complaint of criminal behaviour towards herself.

[35]She states that there were a number of subsequent visits. In this August 1998 witness statement she says, without giving a date: "on one occasion when he called he read to me the statement that had been obtained from" her daughter. In her 2003 statement and in her oral evidence the Claimant was emphatic that the date on which he called to read the statement obtained from her daughter was her own birthday 2nd March. She could not be persuaded to accept that that date for this event must be an error. I am quite satisfied that it is an error. In recounting in August 1998 what happened on 2nd March 1998, as set out above, what she says is consistent with the statement that she in fact signed bearing that date. It is her case that she continued to give the statements that she found so distressing because she believed that it was necessary to help her daughter, and she understood that she could not be told what her daughter had said in interview until she herself had finished making her own statement. She did not finish making her own statement until 11th March. I am sure that any visit in which her daughter's statement was read to her was after 11th March. However, there is no significance that I can see in this discrepancy in her statements. Her memory has let her down after the seven years that have elapsed.

[36]The occasion on which her daughter's statement was read to her was, she says, the first time that she was made aware of all the details of her daughter's complaint. She became extremely upset. She said that Mr Hull cuddled her.

[37]She said there were a number of other visits by Mr Hull after the statements were complete. There were also telephone calls from him. Initially in the telephone calls he would tell her how the investigation was going but he would also say something like "put the coffee on" and within about half an hour he would call in person at her home. He would initially stay for about 30 to 45 minutes but the visits seem to have become longer and longer. During the visits he would often make drinks of coffee in the kitchen. On one occasion she states that she was eating her dinner when he arrived. He went into the kitchen and offered to wash up the dirty dishes saying something like "see how domesticated I am". She formed the impression that he was trying to show her how caring he was in order to make her like him.

[38]She estimated that he telephoned her at least twice a week after finishing taking the statements. She said he would arrive in different cars. She thought he was on duty when he visited, wearing a shirt and tie, although on some occasions she believed that he might be on his way home from work. He wore a pager which he checked.

[39]She formed the opinion that when he visited her he would talk about something with the intention that she would become upset, which would give him an excuse to cuddle her. He would then stroke her back and sometimes wipe her eyes. He always visited her alone. She estimated he visited between 25 and 30 times including the occasions on which he took statements. She estimated there were about 60 telephone calls from him.

[40]On one occasion when he visited her she became upset and was standing in the kitchen. She says he approached her from behind put his arms around her and cuddled her. He then turned her around and cuddled her again saying something like "let it all out".

[41]She said that on these visits he spoke about his work and other cases he was, or had been, involved with. She said that these cases all seemed to involve sexual acts. She states that he told her of a posting that he had had with Special Branch, told her he had a gun, showed his truncheon and demonstrated different self defence holds, putting her into different positions to do so.

[42]She states that on occasions he would ask if he could see her tattoos. He asked if he could see her arms back and belly. The tone of the visits became more personal. He spoke of his family saying that his marriage was almost over; he spoke of a daughter who was in France; he told her that sometimes he went to France for holidays for a few days and that he wanted her to go with him. On one occasion he visited her after absence of a few days. He had a sun tan and he asked her if she wanted to see what he called his "white bits". He unfastened his shirt and showed her a big scar on his stomach. He told her that he thought about her all the time and that he really liked her. He had duty free cigarettes with him. On another occasion he told her that he was going to a pub to celebrate his birthday and he expected a Kissogram from her. Giving Kissograms was work she undertook at that time. He asked if she would give him a private kissogram at home. She refused. She thought he told her that he lived in Gosport.

[43]When he visited her she thought it was obvious that he fancied her. He said things like "I will never hurt you", "I want to care for you and protect you", "You are beautiful", "Your hair looks nice", and "You have a lovely figure". He also said "I know everything about you, I know what you like". She says he asked about her sex life and whether she had slept with a boyfriend. He told her he had feelings for her and wanted to look after her. She says that she made it quite clear that she was not interested in him. He told her that she could get to like him and something like "what do you get from a younger man?" Every time he visited her he cuddled her. Although at first she had thought he was trying to comfort her, once the statements were finished, she thought he was trying to get her to respond to him. She never did, and she told him that he should not do it and pushed him away. She felt that he was becoming obsessed with her with all the telephone calls, visits and talk about sex, and taking every opportunity to touch her.

[44]She recounts a particular incident which she states occurred "approximately four weeks prior to 22nd July 1998". Mr Hull visited her at home at about 4-30 or 5pm. He sat on one settee whilst she was on the other. She was leaning forward with her elbows on her knees. He moved from the chair he was sitting on and knelt in front of her. She was sitting on the edge of the cushion. He pushed himself between her legs, pushed himself towards her, and cuddled her. He put his right hand on her side next to her left breast and moved her hair away from the right side of her neck with his left hand. He gave her a little kiss on the side of her neck and nuzzled her. As he did this, he rubbed her left thigh with his right hand and then moved it onto her buttocks. This all happened in a few seconds. She pushed him away and told him that if he touched her again she would give him a slap. He apologised and left shortly after. She states that all these visits upset her a lot.

[45]She states that she also became worried that he was following her. On Saturday 12th July 1998 she was at the "Fifth Avenue" night club in Southsea. She states that she looked up, and recognised him looking at her from the balcony bar. That was about 11-30pm or midnight.

[46]She stated that she had told a number of people about the worries that she was having concerning Mr Hull. She identified these individuals and statements were taken from them. In the event the statements taken were not adduced in evidence, and the witnesses were not called, at the disciplinary proceedings. The reason for that was that the allegations of inappropriate behaviour, in the sense of touching, were not pursued at those proceedings. The statements are in the bundles before me and have been referred to in cross-examination. But the witnesses have not attended these proceedings either, and the statements are not evidence in the case. Counsel for the defendant and for Mr Hull referred the Claimant to the parts of the statement which it was contended were different from, or inconsistent with, the evidence she had given to me.

[47]On Friday17th July 1998 the Claimant spoke of her concerns to a man she describes as her best friend at the time. He told her that she could not put up with this situation any longer. He telephoned Southsea police. She then took over the call and was told to contact the Detective Inspector who was not then available, namely Chief Inspector Stone (as he now is).

[48]On Saturday 18th July 1998 she did telephone to speak to DI Stone. Unfortunately he was in a meeting and the call was diverted to Mr Hull. She said she wished to speak to DI Stone, which she then did, arranging to meet him on the following Monday.

[49]She states that following this call she received two calls from Mr Hull. The first was about ten minutes after her call. He phoned her and said he was sorry and then hung up. The second was about 6pm that day. She said that she could hear people in the background, that he was speaking fast, and was upset. He told her he was sorry. He pleaded with her not to say anything and said that "tomorrow at 12 they will page me subpoena me and suspend me". He said he would never come to her house again. He said he should never have touched her or cuddled her. He told her that he was not well and was having an operation on 14th August.

[50]Following this point in the stateme nt dated 14thAugust 1998 there are a number of additional matters taken out of chronological order. She states that the day he showed her his scar was about a week before the occasion when he went on his knees and kissed her. The scar ran down his stomach. It looked about six inches long and was in the middle of his stomach. He told her that he had had an operation for an ulcer. That was the same day as the occasion when he had offered to do the washing up. That day when he had kissed her and she had pushed him away, he had asked her if she had told anyone about him. She said she had told a lady called Judy from Victim Support. He was angry about this and dropped or threw a mug of coffee on the floor.

[51]As to the day on which he attended to read her daughter's statement, she said that she had arranged for Judy from Victim Support to be present during the afternoon, as she did not want to be alone with Mr Hull. Mr Hull knew this, but telephoned in the morning, and said he was coming round then. She could not get hold of Judy and tried to contact her landlady, but she was not available either.

[52]In the early stages of the investigation, when she was travelling in a car with her younger daughter and WPC Colebrooke, WPC Colebrooke asked her if she could ask a personal question. She then asked the Claimant if the Claimant had ever been a prostitute. The Claimant said that she had not been, and asked why she had been asked that question. WPC Colebrooke said that Mr Hull had told her to ask. It is common ground that this account of this conversation is all correct.

[53]She states that when Mr Hull was interviewing her and asking her about her sex life he wanted to know lots of details about sexual positions and what had taken place. Although he asked these que stions, he did not write much of it down in the statement. She did not think this was the right thing to do, but assumed he knew what he was doing. In retrospect she thinks he was satisfying his own interest, because this could not help the case against ND.

[54]Mr Hull told her that ND needed a beating, and as there were problems finding him and bringing him back from Ireland, he knew people who would get him back one way or another. Mr Hull said that he was going to wait until ND was arrested before he was going to carry out all other enquiries. He said that he wanted to wait until ND was locked up, so that it would take longer to sort it out and cause him more problems.

[55]The Claimant states that she did nothing to invite Mr Hull to cuddle her, that she is very upset about this situation and what Mr Hull has done to her. She stated that it caused her a lot of stress and anxiety and she had consulted her doctor and been prescribed sleeping tablets. She states that she wished to take the matter to court if there was sufficient evidence to do so and was willing to attend court if necessary.

[56]She stated that on about six or seven occasions when he visited, when he was leaving she opened the front door to let him out, but he pushed the door back shut, turned and cuddled her. She always pushed him away. On one occasion he resisted and would not let go. He held her for a couple of minutes until she could push him off. This occurred about the time that he offered to wash the dishes. It was around this time that he seemed to be intense and obsessed about her. Whenever he cuddled her in the hallway, he stood outside an apologised and said "I am really sorry". Often after he visited her he would phone and apologise.

[57]On one occasion when Mr Hull was taking a statement from her, a police office from Gosport traffic police called concerning a matter relating to the number plate of her car. Mr Hull spoke to the officer who then drove away and Mr Hull stated that she would not be bothered by him again. It is common ground that this happened.

[58]On one occasion which was before the occasion on which Mr Hull showed her his scar, the Claimant arranged for a friend to be at the house when Mr Hull arrived. Mr Hull looked surprised to see her and she questioned him about how the case was proceeding. She is one of the persons from whom a statement was taken, a part of which she was referred to in cross-examination on behalf of the Defendant. It is common ground that the lady was present.

[59]On 30th September 1998, Mr Hull was interviewed by other officers, DI Dodds (Chief Inspector Dodds as he now is) and DS Bramah. Both officers gave evidence before me. Mr Hull said in evidence before me that if asked at the trial the questions he had been asked in interview, he would give the same answers, that is to say that he stood by the answers he had given in interview.

[60]The interview was recorded. The purpose of the interview was stated to be to investigate the complaint by the Claimant that he made visits and telephone calls to her in excess of that which was necessary for the investigation, that on occasions he made unwanted physical approaches by cuddling kissing and stroking her, that he neglected his duty by making unnecessary visits to her home in police transport while on duty and that during the visits he made improper disclosure of information concerning other police investigations. He was cautioned, because the allegations also related to criminal matters, but informed that he was not under arrest and not obliged to remain in the interview and free to seek legal advice. At the end of the interview, he was told that he would be reinterviewed for the purposes of the disciplinary proceedings, to which the caution did not apply. He said he would answer the same questions with the same answers and had nothing to add.

[61]Describing his initial contacts with the Claimant, Mr Hull said that he went down to take a statement which finished up at forty odd pages long. He said:

"I think initially I had anticipated just a straightforward the disclosure by [the daughter] to her, but she quite without solicitation from me, we went back to the very start when she met [ND] when she lived in Jersey right the way up to [ND] leaving the country I think. During this she became distressed, distraught which is why it was taking in four weeks and some days apart. At the completion because my writing's not very good I had it typed and took it back for her to read and again she became distressed, distraught and I think that was sort of mid Marchish I think."

[62]He described her as "extremely insecure" and said "she had all sorts of problems". He said he mentioned other cases to her in particular one involving Victor Farrant to try to explain to her the problems involved in extradition. He said that she would ring up and complain about delays. He referred to problems she had with her car. Traffic police had raised issues about the number plate and a light, which had given rise to suspicions as to who had sold it to her, and it had been stolen and damaged, which had given rise to a demand for storage charges by the Metropolitan Police.

[63]Mr Hull said that he visited the Claimant once with WPC Colebrooke, and then on the occasions when he took the statement, over a period of about two weeks, and following that that he visited her a further five or six times. These later visits, he said, were a result of her complaining about the police not getting ND out of Ireland, at least mainly.

[64]In relation to the time when the Claimant made her complaint, Mr Hull said that he was told by DI Stone not to visit her. But he had been due to visit her that evening in order to take some elimination finger prints in relation to the car, and so he phoned her up and said that he would not be around that night to take the finger prints. He said she asked why not and he said that he had been instructed not to and that was it. That call took place within minutes of her complaint. He said he told her she could still bring in an estimate for the car which she said she had.

[65]As described belo w, later Mr Hull also agreed in interview that he made a second call that day to her.

[66]Mr Hull agreed that the visits to take the statement usually took about two hours. He said that for each of the visits after the taking of the statement, they were never unannounced. He said she rang him. She was very insecure. He asked her if she wanted to talk, to have a cup of tea, and that would be it. He said that he only visited her if he was not busy and it was eighteen minutes down the motorway to visit her. However, although he said that she rang him, he said that she never said to him come around.

[67]He said she "really flipped" when her car was stolen. He said he was compassionate with victims. He said she is neurotic, definitely neurotic. He felt sorry for her but no more than for anyone else.

[68]He said that when he visited her for the first time after the visit with WPC Colebrooke she mentioned the name of the police officer who had investigated the indecent assault allegation she had made in 1997 (see below).

[69]Inspector Dodds remarked that statements were taken from her, or a big statement divided, and Mr Hull responded "and it was stopped purely and simply because she was absolutely distraught distressed, sobbing".

[70]Inspector Dodds asked what other enquiries were made on this job. Mr Hull replied that they were mainly means of finding out about ND and how to get him out of Ireland. The joint interview with the daughter had already been done by WPC Colebrooke. He said his statements were of the Claimant's past history with ND.

[71]I pause at this point to interpose the following. When a complaint is made by a child of rape or sexual abuse it is common for a statement to be taken from the mother. The first purpose of taking such a statement is to establish the age of the child. This is normally done by asking the mother for a copy of the child's birth certificate. Other evidence which a mother might be expected to give relates to whether the child made a complaint or manifested any other behaviour, which might be consistent, or inconsistent, with the allegation made by the child. In cases where the child alleges abuse by the mother's sexual partner, further enquiries may be appropriate if there are any distinctive features of the allegations made by the child as to the abuser's conduct. The mother may be asked about the abuser's sexual conduct with the mother, in order to establish whether or not he manifested such distinctive behaviour with her. Apart from such cases, the history of the sexual conduct between the mother and her partner is not likely to be relevant. In this case the allegations made by the child in interview are as recounted above. There is little by way of distinctive conduct alleged by her against her abuser.

[72]In response to the question from Inspector Dodds as to what other enquiries were made on this job, Mr Hull referred to the possibility at some future date of taking a statement from a babysitter, but referred to no other enquiries. He nowhere records that he obtained a copy of the daughter's birth certificate and he now accepts that he did not obtain it. As recounted above, there is very little in the statements that he did take concerning the daughter at all.

[73]Mr Hull described how the statements were taken. He said there would be routine talk to start with to make sure everything was calm. Either she, or he, might make a cup of coffee. She would just "rattle on". When she got to parts about ND she would become "extremely distressed and distraught and sobbing, particularly where he, or where she that he, was – inflicted fear and physical violence upon her".

[74]The Claimant and he were seated while he wrote down the statements. He said there were two settees, one at about 90 degrees to the other, and she would sit on one and he would sit on the other. When he needed her signature, as he invariably would at the end, he would sit next to her using his briefcase as a table. He said he sometimes made a cup of coffee, perhaps twice he said. He said he did this if they were in midstatement and she was particularly distressed and distraught. He would give her a cigarette and ask her if she wanted a cup of coffee and go and make it as the kitchen was just around the corner, that is it was almost one unit.

[75]He said that he had a daughter at University in France. This arose because the Claimant came from Jersey and addresses which she gave as to where she had lived in Jersey are in French. He said the Claimant knew he was married with two children. He said on one occasion there was a conversation about a forthcoming visit by himself to France to see his daughter. A friend of the Claimant was present at the time. The friend and the Claimant, he said, jokingly suggested that they would like to come.

[76]He said that the Claimant would bend his ear incessantly about getting ND out of Ireland, and kept harassing him as to what would happening, and he would tell her that he was waiting for a decision.

[77]He said that all his visits to her were on duty and he never visited her off duty. He did not visit her on his way home. He used his own car on two occasions when no police vehicle was available. On those occasions he made a claim for mileage. On other occasions he used a police vehicle. So in total he claimed mileage for about ten visits.

[78]Mr Hull said tha t he telephoned the Claimant at home. He said he would do this if he had not heard from her for a couple of weeks just to check that all was well. He was also concerned about the daughter. One reason for this was that in the daughter's interview there was a lot of detail about rape in Jersey, but very little in relation to her allegations of rape or abuse in Hampshire. There was therefore the possibility that the daughter might have to be re-interviewed either in Jersey or in the UK.

[79]Mr Hull said there was also a concern on the part of the Claimant about a relationship she had with a person some years ago as to which she had signed a confidentiality agreement. He said the Claimant was concerned that if the matter under investigation got to court ND would use the opportunity to disclose this confidential matter. He said this involved consultations on his part with a supervisor, and him reporting back to her that this was a bridge that would be crossed if they ever came to it.

[80]On one occasion he said the Claimant phoned him up distraught and he asked her if there was somebody nearby, by which he meant somebody nearby who could help her. When he arrived to take the statement on that occasion there was somebody present who the Claimant had arranged to have there.

[81]He said the Claimant became upset on each and every visit and on more than one occasion each time. He said she was irritable shouting and sometimes in tears particularly over the occasion when the car was stolen. He said she would cry on each occasion that he took a statement at least twice. It was particularly references to violence from ND that started her crying. She did not cry so much in the visits after the statements were taken. But even on those occasions she would sob when talking about her daughter.

[82]He said that when she became upset he tried to calm her down. He would give her a cigarette, as he would do with virtually anybody, male or female, who was upset:

"maybe a reassuring hand on her arm or something of that sort, there there, nothing more than that…. Just a hand literally on the arm, that's all, a bit of reassurance"

. He would not move seats to do this, he would only sit next to her on the same settee when he had a written statement which he was required to sign. He never touched her anywhere except on the arm. He denied putting his arm around her shoulders, and showing her self-defence holds.

[83]Asked what was his purpose in obtaining the statements, he said: "I thought … if we are going to have this man in Crown Court we want to show just what a nasty so and so, a nasty piece of work, he is, so she's happy to talk, we'll take the lot to show his violent nature".

[84]Asked about the sexual acts described he said:

"That was totally unsolicited. She gave that to me. It doesn't seem to bother her at all, whereas other women might get embarrassed, she didn't seem to be"

. He said she give him other explicit information about her sexual relations with men when she was no longer living with ND. He said he did not include this information in the statement, because they were nothing to do with ND.

[85]In interview DI Dodds asked Mr Hull what was the relevance of the incident of anal intercourse, bearing in mind he was investigating allegations against the daughter. Mr Hull said he could not exactly remember what the daughter's medical said, but there were possibilities that ND performed anal sex on each of the three children. He said the Claimant volunteered the information.

[86]DI Dodds referred to the descriptions of different sexual positions adopted by the Claimant and ND and asked about the relevance of this, Mr Hull replied that it had none whatsoever other than to show that he, ND, was sexually active and that it was information the Claimant had volunteered.

[87]Mr Hull then said, incorrectly, that the point that the Claimant had been trying to make in the statements was that ND would invariably assault her after sex. That is not what the statements say at all. Having said that ND invariably assaulted her after sex, Mr Hull then corrected himself and said it happened from time to time. He then added spontaneously: "I am not a voyeur. I get no pleasure from taking that or writing it… The fact that her main complaint about those was that he would what she considered normal sex and afterwards he would physically assault her, walk out on her and treat her bad".

[88]Asked how these accounts assisted the enquiry Mr Hull said:

"It doesn't assist the enquiry but I was looking ahead to a Crown Court state where it could have been viewed as good evidence of his violent nature."

He said she gave the information, and it was totally unsolicited. She just rambled on and on, he said. He said that at no point did he say: "Did you do this?"

[89]Asked whether he put his arm round her and cuddled her Mr Hull said no he did not, he did not need to do that.

[90]Later D I Dodds referred to the Claimant's statement in which she says that there was contact but she understood that Mr Hull was trying only to reassure her. Mr Hull said:

"As I say, so just normal and on the arm a friendly hand of reassurance"

. Shortly afterwards he said:

"As I say sir, just normal and on the arm, a friendly hand, a reassurance. I am a policeman. That's it"

. He denied the further incidents of touching which she described in her statement. He denied that his shirt had been smeared. He denied wiping her eyes, and putting his arms round her in the kitchen. He accepted that he had remarked on her having tattoos, but did not ask any questions about them. He said he could see them on her arm because she wore short sleeves. He denied the incident in which she alleged he had pushed himself between her legs and touched her side and kissed her neck.

[91]He denied that he had asked any questions or made any remarks about her which were personal of the kind she complains of. He denied having seen her at any location other than her home.

[92]Mr Hull then volunteered that he suffered from erectile dysfunction. DI Dodds commented that it was his understanding that that would not necessarily remove desire. Mr Hull said it could and it had.

[93]Asked about the complaint that he had shown his suntan to the Claimant, Mr Hull said that he did not take off his shirt but only his watch to show the "white bits". Asked about the scar on his abdomen he showed it to DI Dodds. DI Dodds referred to the description given by the Claimant in her statement. In evidence before me DI Dodds said that his recollection in reading of the transcript was that the description given by the Claimant was consistent with what he himself saw.

[94]Asked about the incident relating to his birthday, Mr Hull said that the Claimant rang him and asked what he was doing for the weekend. He said it was his birthday. He said the Claimant said that she would get a friend to come along and give him a Kissogram and he said no thank you. As to his marriage he denied discussing it and said that all the Claimant knew was that he was married and that was it. He said that he had had operations on his knee in April and August but that he had not discussed these with the Claimant. He denied all the allegations which the Claimant had included in her statement as to his conduct while he was at her house.

[95]As to the police interest in her car number plate, Mr Hull said a uniformed officer came to the door while he was with the Claimant, and that was the first he had known about the incident. He said there was nothing to sort out because she had the number plate changed. Mr Hull denied ever knocking over a coffee cup, and denied that he had ever done the washing up, other than his own cup, or that he had made any remarks about doing it.

[96]Asked about the telephone calls, Mr Hull said he only rang to check she and her daughter were alright, once every three to five days, and later he said once every ten days to two weeks. He thought there were about fifteen calls from him in the five months March through to July. DI Dodds said that according to the print out that he had had prepared there were seventy calls that had been made to the Claimant from extensions within the stations at Cosham and Fratton over that period. Mr Hull said "certainly not me sir, not seventy, no way". He said he was totally amazed at the figure of seventy calls.

[97]Referring to the calls after she had complained, Mr Hull said:

"… the first call was 'I won't be around'. The second one from Cosham, and it may well have been from DS Daye's office because you can smoke in there was to say bring your documentation in tomorrow and she started going on about [her daughter]. So I sat and listened for however long and that was it."

He denied apologizing or pleading with her. Asked how she knew he was about to have an operation, he said it must have come out in conversation, meaning at some other time.

[98]In summarising the interview with D I Dodds, Mr Hull said that the Claimant's complaints were totally false and scurrilous. The only possible reason he could think of for her making them was the man from whom she had bought the car. He said there could be no other reason at all, because he was compassionate and trying to help. He said he visited her using his own car on two occasions but claimed for the mileage and on other occasions he booked the car in the police vehicle log book.

[99]DI Dodds returned to the question why he had included in the statement the descriptions of consensual sex. Mr Hull repeated, as he had said before, that it was not voyeuristic and that the information was offered up by the Claimant. He then reiterated the incorrect explanation that he had given originally but then retracted, namely that "the more information you could have the better and it showed his violent nature because after consensual sex he would invariably assault her and that was the reason why it was there".

[100]DI Dodds asked Mr Hull whether he had ever been in Special Branch. He answered that he was in Port Unit for a while but he personally did not consider that Special Branch. He said that he had told the Claimant that he worked in a Ferry Port, but would not have used the term Special Branch. He said he had told her about his scar, but not the length of it.

[101]There is no dispute that Mr Hull asked WPC Colebrooke to ask the Claimant if she had ever been a prostitute. WPC Colebrooke did ask the question and the Claimant replied that she never had been. Asked what the significance of this question might be, Mr Hull said "because it could have been something used in court later on to try and discredit her again which I discussed with Mandy Colebrooke". Detective Constable Colebrooke as she now is, gave evidence and denied that she had discussed that with Mr Hull.

[102]The Claimant was interviewed again on 16th February 1999. She said she was asked by DI Dodds to clarify some points.

[103]In this statement the Claimant stated that on one occasion, in response to Mr Hull's questions, she had described ho w ND had thrown her downstairs after they had had sex together. She said that Mr Hull asked her what underwear she was wearing on that occasion and she told him. When she had told him that he asked her what colour it was and what material it was.

[104]On another occasion Mr Hull asked her what else she might have done for ND sexually. She told him that she wore different underwear but it failed to excite him. Mr Hull said something like "If you dressed up for me I'd want you. If you dressed in stockings and suspenders any man would want a woman dressed like that".

[105]The Claimant said Mr Hull asked her a lot of questions about her sex life with ND, wanting to know things like whether they cuddled after lovemaking, who would initiate love making how frequently ND and she orgasmed, and what type of orgasm she had, and whether she enjoyed sex. She sets out other questions of a similar nature which she says that he asked her. She said that Mr Hull had told her that he could not tell her the details of her daughter's statement until her own was finished. She stated she wondered why he needed so much detail of her own sexual relationship with ND, especially as he did not write it all down, but assumed it was necessary to corroborate her daughter's statement. She said he told her that there could be no criminal proceedings arising out of anything ND did to her because it was longer than three years ago.

[106]The Claimant agreed that after the statements had been taken they had discussed how ND would be brought back from Ireland, although she said they also discussed Mr Hull's marriage.

[107]DI Dodds asked the Claimant about the incident in 1997 to which Mr Hull had referred in interview. She said that a man indecently assaulted her when she was performing a strippogram, the man was arrested, and she dropped the proceedings after he apologised.

[108]This is entirely unrelated to the matters relating to ND, but she was cross examined on it as to credit, both at the disciplinary proceedings and before me. A fuller account appears from her contemporary statements dated March and May 1997 and from her evidence to me. The Claimant had been booked by an agency to do a Kissogram act in a pub in Paulsgrove. The act involved arriving at the pub provocatively dressed, removing some of her clothes, sitting on the lap of the person for whom the Kissogram had been arranged, reading a poem, and other similar acts. She gave a statement to the police on 24th March 1997, two days after the incident, in which she complained that she had been indecently assaulted by two men at the pub while performing the act. The allegations were of serious indecent assaults. In spite of what she said had occurred she had managed to complete the act and returned home. But on returning home she had felt so shocked and upset that she started obsessively cleaning the house. In a statement given in May 1997 the Claimant stated that she had recently spoken to one of the men who had indecently assaulted her, that she had received an apology from him and she had accepted this. She said that she was grateful to the police for their help in this matter but did not wish to proceed with it any further but just wanted to put it all behind her. The matter was then dropped.

[109]In the statement of 16th February 1999 the Claimant states that she saw Mr Hull at Southampton airport one day in June or early July 1998, when she was wearing a halterneck top which showed her tattoo. She said he did not speak to her then, but when she saw him at home afterwards he made a remark about her tattoos, although he could not see them when he was at her home. He denied seeing her at the airport.

[110]As to their discussions about her car, the Claimant stated that when the Metropolitan Police demanded storage charges she asked Mr Hull if they could do this. She stated that Mr Hull said that he would sort it out. She stated that she did not ask for help but he offered.

[111]Witness statements were also given by DI Stone, DI Dodds and DS Bramah, and WPC Colebrooke, all four of whom gave evidence before me (although DS Bramah was not required to attend in person).

[112]DI Stone states that when he read the five statements taken from the Claimant by Mr Hull he noticed the sexually explicit incidents. He stated that the content of these statements was so detailed sexually that it caused him some concern. He decided to monitor DC Hull for a few months. He considered the details were irrelevant to the enquiry, and that only basic information was necessary because there was never any indication, as far as he was aware, of criminal proceedings against ND for offences on the Claimant. He was also concerned at the reference in one statement to the emotional state of the Claimant. He received the call on 20th July 1998 in which the Claimant complained that she was not happy about DC Hull visiting her alone. He stated that he instructed DC Hull "not to have any contact with" the Claimant, and to hand to himself the elimination fingerprint forms for him to arrange for them to be completed. He said he was surprised to hear that DC Hull had spent the number of hours alleged by the Claimant at her home address.

[113]DI Dodds produced the contact sheet referred to above. DS Bramah spoke of his meetings with a Mr Allen, who had been to the Claimant's house. Mr Allen gave a statement, but it was not adduced at the disciplinary proceedings, or before me.

[114]DC Colebrooke (as she now is) gave a statement dated 6th November 1998. In it she stated that on 4th March 1998 at the request of Mr Hull she had asked the Claimant if she had ever been involved in prostitution and the Claimant had seemed surprised and categorically denied it. She had no further dealings with the case until 15th September 1998. On that date she visited the Claimant in Jersey with DC Butcher to update her on the investigation. She found her tearful. The Claimant said that she did not want DC Hull disciplined, she wanted him taken to a criminal court. DC Colebrooke visited the Claimant again on 5th November 1998. She stated that a copy of the file had been sent to Jersey in connection with offences committed in Jersey. She said the offence in Hampshire was being investigated by herself and DC Butcher.

[115]The disciplinary proceedings included an oral hearing which started on 1st February 2000 and occupied five days, the last being 23rd March 2000. There is a transcript. It covers 208 closely typed pages (although there are a number of passages where words have not been transcribed). Both the Claimant and Mr Hull gave oral evidence, as did some of the other witnesses who had given statements. The Claimant was cross examined by counsel on behalf of Mr Hull. Mr Hull was cross examined by the presenting officer. Mr Hull told me that he stood by the answers given by him in those proceedings, and would give the same answers to me if asked the same questions.

[116]While being cross-examined, the Claimant was asked about the incident in 1997 when she alleged indecent assault. She volunteered that she had withdrawn her complaint because she was intimidated by people connected to the suspect. She named the families she was afraid of. She was challenged then, as she was before me, on the basis that that was a new explanation, not given to the police previously. She was also asked about the visit to her house by the police officer inquiring about the car number plates. She volunteered that Mr Hull became angry at that visit. She was challenged then, as she was before me, to the effect that Mr Hull did not get angry. It was put to her, and she agreed, that Mr Hull had come back into the house saying that he thought she would probably not be having any further problems about the vehicle registration.

[117]Mr Hull was cross examined. Asked about the daughter's birth certificate, he said that he did not get it. He said he asked about it, but did not follow it up. He accepted that the Claimant was not making a criminal allegation against ND at the time he took the statements from her. He accepted that she never suggested to him that she wanted to make such an allegation. He said that the five visits to take her statements took ten to twelve hours.

[118]DI Stone was cross-examined on behalf of Mr Hull. In the cross-examination of Mr Hull, it was put to Mr Hull that DI Stone was not challenged on his evidence that he had told Mr Hull not to contact the Claimant once she had made her complaint. Mr Hull agreed that DI Stone had not been challenged when he said that he had told Mr Hull not to contact the Claimant. And he accepted that he had made two calls to the Claimant after her complaint.

[119]On 23rd March 2000 Mr Hull was found guilty and the punishment imposed was a fine of five days' pay. THE EVIDENCE AT THIS TRIAL

[120]The present proceedings were commenced on 31st December 2002. Meanwhile Mr Hull had retired from the police force on reaching retirement age on 7th May 2002, and the Claimant had remarried. She had returned to live in Jersey before the disciplinary proceedings. She attended them on visits from Jersey. In September 2000 she went to Spain. She came back to Hampshire in December 2001. The reasons for these moves are exp lained below.

[121]Being unrepresented, the Claimant gave her evidence in chief by verifying two new witness statements, one dated 12th December 2003 and one dated 30th January 2004. In the latter she verifies her statements of 14th August 1998 and 16th February 1999, so that they became evidence in the trial. She also commented on the witness statements of other people who were not called to give evidence, whether at the disciplinary proceedings or before me.

[122]The Claimant was cross-examined by Mr Weddell on behalf of the Defendant for some forty minutes.

[123]The Particulars of Claim were dated 14th December 2002 in their unamended form, and 1st August 2003 as amended to include a claim for damages for loss of earning capacity. That is before she signed her witness statement of 12th December 2003. They were settled by counsel. Mr Weddell suggested that in one significant respect it differs from any of her witness statements, namely by alleging that Mr Hull stroked her breast. Her August 1998 statement had said:

"he put his right hand on my side next to my left breast"

. She said it referred to the same event. Mr Weddell suggested that her explanation to the police in 1997 for dropping the indecent assault complaint was only half true because she failed to mention the intimidation. Mr Weddell pointed to differences as to details of the incidents complained of when the Claimant's account was compared to that of other witnesses who had given written statements but who did not give evidence. He also asked her about appearances that she had made on TV programmes concerning domestic violence. It was suggested that if she was able to do that, she should have been able to make her complaint against Mr Hull earlier than she did. She said that she wanted to complete her statements and get ND extradited.

[124]The Claimant was cross-examined by Mr Burton for Mr Hull from 1140 that day until 1500 the following day. He put to her differences in the accounts of various events that she had given at different times. He referred to the incident with the 15 year old boy referred to in her first witness statement in February 1998, and to differences between what she had told Dr Plant about her history, and the information she had given in her witness statements about contact with a psychiatrist in Jersey and incidents when she had been violent in Jersey. As to the 1997 incident, his attack was both that she had changed her story and that she was exaggerating when she said that she had been intimidated. She was asked sensitive information about her relationship with the friend who had precipitated her complaint to the police in July 1998, with a view to suggesting that she could have complained earlier. She agreed that amongst other matters which concerned her when talking to Mr Hull was a portfolio of photos which ND had taken, and which she wanted back. She agreed that after the statements were completed there were about six to ten visits by Mr Hull to her home. She agreed she had asked Mr Hull if the storage charges for her stolen car were right. She gave little ground on the points at which Mr Hull's version of events differed from her own.

[125]She was asked about the various matters in respect of which Mr Hull did become involved, but which were not directly related to the investigation, and which she had not mentioned in her statements. The car was important to her for her work, for ferrying her children and shopping. It was a distinctive sporty car. Before it was stolen there were the two other incidents relating to it which had attracted the attention of the police. It had defective lights and a number plate which was not in conformity with the legal requirements. While investigating these matters the police officers concerned also became suspicious and enquired who she had bought it from. She had in fact bought it from a man who was well known to Mr Hull in that he had been responsible for an investigation which resulted in that man being prosecuted and convicted for trading standards offences. There is no dispute that the Claimant discussed this with Mr Hull and that he assisted her in approaching other police officers about the storage charges following the theft. These matters relating to her car are therefore available as a possible explanation for some of the communications which undoubtedly took place between the Claimant and Mr Hull in the period complained of.

[126]The matters arising from the car episodes were also relied on in cross-examination in a further respect. It was put to the Claimant (as it had been put in the disciplinary proceedings) that the man who had sold her the car bore a grudge against Mr Hull for his conviction, and that her friendship with that man might be the explanation for why she was making false allegations against Mr Hull. It was suggested that it was a conspiracy between her and the man who sold the car to discredit Mr Hull. The Claimant said she did not know that the man who sold the car knew, or had a grudge against, Mr Hull. She emphatically denied the suggestion that he had put her up to bringing these allegations against Mr Hull.

[127]It was also put to the Claimant that if she was discussing these matters with Mr Hull, then she was not as upset as she said she was about his behaviour towards her. The telephone logs taken from her telephone showed that on occasions including one as late as 13th July (that is, within a week before her complaint to D I Stone) she had herself called Mr Hull's direct dial number at the police station. So again, it was put to her, she cannot have been as upset about his behaviour as she now claims.

[128]The four police officers gave their evidence called by the Claimant, and all but DS Bramah were cross-examined by Mr Burton.

[129]Mr Burton asked DC Colebrooke about the prostitution question, suggesting that such a question was better asked by a female officer. She did not agree and added that there are more sensitive issues than that which a male investigating officer might have to ask a mother in such a situation, namely sexual and personal matters. However, she did not enlarge upon this answer, and it is not apparent what she had in mind.

[130]DI Dodds had made a witness statement dated 19th April 1999. His responsibilities included training police officers, particularly detectives, in ethical investigative interviews. He gave his opinion that it was inappropriate for Mr Hull to have taken the statements unaccompanied when they detailed intimate sexual experiences, and said that he would have expected a male officer to break off an interview when a female interviewee became upset. In any event, in his opinion the detail of consensual sexual experience with ND was not relevant to the investigation. Before me it was common ground that DI Dodds was not appearing as an expert witness, but a witness of fact (namely the interview of Mr Hull and the investigation of the Claimant's complaint) whose presence was requested for cross-examination by Mr Hull. He was also asked questions by the Claimant.

[131]In answer to Mr Burton he said that it is not correct that an investigating officer asks mothers of victims intimate details about their sexual activity unless there is some particular relevance, which there was not in this case. After some pressing, he said he disagreed with DC Colebrooke's remark that there might be such questions to be asked. He explained the contact sheet. In particular he said that the calls recorded were simply calls made, including calls that were not connected because there was no reply. He accepted there was one mistake in the list of visits, in that it recorded one visit which had not related to the Claimant.

[132]Mr Hull gave evidence in chief. He verified his written witness statement dated 2nd December 2004, subject to three handwritten corrections dated 31st October 2005. He denied that it was his actions which contributed to the distress she suffered while giving the statements. He said she gave the information of her own volition, and the only time he interrupted was to ask her to clarify matters of fact that had already been stated. He denied asking any of the questions set out in the Particulars of Claim relating to her sexual activities, or any questions of a prurient or voyeuristic nature. He said there was no other reason for his recording what she said other than the thorough criminal investigation of the alleged criminal offences carried out by ND against the Claimant's daughter. He denied showing her his scar, saying her knowledge of it must have come from their general conversations. He set out the problems the Claimant had had with her car. He said he telephoned police in London at her request, and that they said she had used his name to them. He said that it was likely that many of the logged calls were not answered and that they were attempts by him to contact the Claimant in the course of his duties. They were not inappropriate. He said he had to read the typed statements back to the Claimant because she told him she was dyslexic. He said he tried to put her at her ease when she became upset (although he does not state how he tried to do this). He said he considered that if they had complaints from the Claimant about ND's treatment of her, that might assist in arranging extradition. When she showed signs of distress he stated that he would try to calm her down and may well have handed her a cup of coffee. He denied any impropriety. He described only one call made by himself to the Claimant the day that she complained to DI Stone. He said it was to explain that he would not be attending her house that day as planned, and not as she described it. Referring for the third time to her distress when interviewed, he said he would wait until she composed herself, and then ask if she was ready and when she said yes he would continue taking the statement. He referred to her telling him how ND raped her, which must be an error of recollection. At no point does he mention having touched her in any way at all.

[133]Mr Burton examined Mr Hull in chief for forty minutes. He explained how the Claimant knew he had been in Special Branch by saying that that it was generally known that officers at the ferry port were in Special Branch. He was cross-examined by the Claimant before and after the adjournment until 1435. He accepted that he and she were together in the kitchen at her home on more than one occasion, but denied her version of what happened there, and all her other allegations which she duly put to him. He substantially repeated what he had said in interview in 1998.

[134]The written evidence of Dr Plant, and the written and oral evidence of Dr Reveley is also relevant to the Claimants' credibility. I ha ve had it in mind in considering her evidence, but will refer to it further below. THE LAW

[135]In referring to the claim as being one for assault I have used that term in its ordinary meaning. In law, a civil claim for damages against a defendant alleged to ha ve struck or touched a claimant is a claim for the tort of battery. In Wainwright v Home Office

[2003] UKHL 53

;

[2004] 2 AC 406

Lord Hoffmann summarised that tort succinctly in terms that are sufficient for the purposes of these proceedings. He said at para [9]:

"Battery involves a touching of the person with what is sometimes called hostile intent (as opposed to a friendly pat on the back) but which Robert Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172, 1177 redefined as meaning any intentional physical contact which was not "generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life": see also Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237 ."

An unwanted kiss may be a battery: R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall ex p CEGB

[1982] QB 458

, 471. There is no requirement that a battery be indecent, as there is in the crime of indecent assault, although, of course, there may be indecency in fact. Indecent assault is an offence which, for a time, was under consideration in relation to Mr Hull.

[136]The claim in Wainwright was by a man and his mother. The man's penis had been touched by prison officers in the course of a search when they visited the prison. His claim succeeded, because the prison officers offered no explanation for the touching. The mother had not been touched, and advanced a claim for infringement of her privacy. Her claim was rejected as bad in law, as the law stood at the time in question.

[137]The Claimant's claim for harassment is made under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ss1 and 3. This Act had come into force a few months before the conduct complained of. The claim is thus an unusual one. In relation to facts occurring before the coming into force of the 1997 Act, no such claim could have succeeded other than on the basis of battery (that is, touching which was not acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life), or, perhaps, negligence (which was not a claim advanced in this case). In relation to events occurring after the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (in October 2000), a claim might also be brought against a police officer under s.7 of that Act and Art 8 (right to respect for private life).

[138]The relevant provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 read as follows:

"1(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct— (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. (2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other. 3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows-- (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. 3.(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question. (2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment. ... 7.(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to 5. (2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress. (3) A "course of conduct" must involve conduct on at least two occasions. (4) "

Conduct" includes speech.

[139]

Art 8 of the Convention

reads, so far as relevant:

" Article 8 -- right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society …., for the prevention of disorder or crime, …, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

[140]Both counsel submitted that the test of a defendant's purpose under s.1(3)(a) was purely subjective. A defendant is not to be judged on the basis of whether or not a reasonable man would think that his conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, but on the basis of whether or not he had an honest belief that it was. Otherwise, it is said, s.1(3)(a) is otiose, since all cases falling within that subsection would be subsumed in s.1(3)(c). It was submitted that a requirement of proportionality is deliberately omitted by the draughtsman. In other words, if that argument is sound, it was lawful if a police officer harassed a claimant when his purpose was to prevent crime, even if his actions were either unnecessary for the prevention of crime, or disproportionate. I received no legal argument on behalf of the Claimant.

[141]Mr Burton submitted that the wording of s.1(3)(a) of the 1997 Act clearly reflected Art 8(2) in its reference to prevention of crime. But he said that the draughtsman had deliberately not included in the 1997 Act the requirement that any infringement of the Art 8(1) right should be necessary or proportionate. Both counsel submitted that I should read the 1997 Act, as it applied at the time of the events in question, as including no such limitation.

[142]Mr Burton cited Thomas v News Group

[2001] EWCA Civ 1233

para 30 in support of the proposition that harassment describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in s.7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable.

[143]Wainwright , like the present case, concerned events that took place before the Human Rights Act 1998 had come into force in October 2000. In para 18 of his speech Lord Hoffmann noted that there were, before that date, a number of common law and statutory remedies of which it might have been said that at least one of the underlying values they protect is the right to privacy. He gave the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as a statutory example. In para 11 he referred to the principle by which, even before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, the courts interpreted statutes so as to conform, if possible, to the Convention.

[144]Although the Claimant was not a position to argue this point before me, I have little doubt that in considering the meaning of the 1997 Act in relation to events occurring after the coming into force of the Human Rights Act the courts would be bound to interpret s.1(3)(a) as being subject to the tests of necessity and proportionality. There is no doubt that obtaining information from a woman about her sexual activities for the purposes of criminal proceedings (in particular to proceedings to which she was not a party) would engage Art 8, and would be subject to the tests of necessity and proportionality: Z v Finland

(1997) 25 EHRR 371

. Interference with private life by the police must be objectively justified under Art 8(2): Z v Finland and McLeod v UK

(1998) 27 EHRR 493

[145]So there might be an issue of law as to whether s.1(3)(a) should be interpreted so as to conform to the Convention, even in respect of the period before the Human Rights Act 1998 was in force. Given the findings of fact that follow, I do not have to resolve this question of law.

[146]There is no issue as to the burden and standard of proof. As to harassment, the burden is on the Claimant, and as to the defence under s.1(3)(a) it is on Mr Hull, as the section provides. The standard of proof applicable to the matters the Claimant has to prove is the civil standard, subject to the enhancement for serious allegations, as explained by Lord Nicolls in Re H (Minors) Sexual Abuse (Standard of Proof)

[1996] AC 563

686d-h. See also Hipgrave v Jones

[2004] EWHC 2901 (QB)

para 65. FINDINGS OF FACT

[147]I start with matters that are not in dispute, and in particular with the contents of the statements dated February and March 1998 relating to sexual matters.

[148]So far as the contents of the statements are concerned, and the fact that the Claimant was very distressed on each of the five occasions when Mr Hull took those statements, the facts are agreed. It is agreed that the statements were recorded by him, and read back to her before she signed them and again when they were typed.

[149]There is, of course, no dispute that the taking of the five statements amounts to a course of conduct within the meaning of the 1997 Act. No issue arises on that phrase in this case.

[150]There is no dispute that the taking of the five statements caused the Claimant distress. Mr Hull in his evidence drew a distinction between the descriptions of violence and the descriptions of sex. It was the former which he said caused the distress. I cannot accept that distinction. If he did not know that the descriptions of both were the cause of the Claimant's distress, then he certainly ought to have known. In fact I find that he did know.

[151]There is an issue as to whether the statements were the result of questions asked by Mr Hull, or whether it was all volunteered. This issue does not seem to me to be of very great significance.

[152]At the time the statements were taken in 1998 the Claimant was aged 38 years and Mr Hull was aged 51 years. She had had a difficult life and was making some money by performing kissogram acts for clients introduced by an agency. He had served in the Royal Navy 1965 to 1983, when he joined the Hampshire constabulary. In 1990 he had been trained to carry out joint interviews with members of Social Services in respect of children who alleged they had been abused. Mr Hull was at the Claimant's house to take her statement. She relied on him to direct her as to what she needed to say for the purposes of the investigation into her daughter's allegation of rape. It was his responsibility to confine her to matters which were relevant to that. If she did start to pour out her whole life with ND, he should have stopped her. He had no right to receive such disclosures, if they were irrelevant, and all but the first of his five visits to her house were a waste of his time while he was on duty.

[153]Be that as it may, I do not accept that she did just volunteer the information as he claims. On the contrary, as he himself says, she repeatedly became very distressed and the interviews were interrupted. I have no hesitation in finding that she said what she said partly in response to explicit questions from Mr Hull, and partly because Mr Hull gave her to understand that those disclosures by her were required by him before she could hear the details of her daughter's interview, and for the purpose of obtaining the arrest and (if necessary) the extradition of ND.

[154]The taking of the statements was a course of conduct and was plainly harassment. So I must decide whether the statements were taken for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, within the meaning of s.1(3)(a).

[155]In his answers to questions in interview in September 1998, and again at trial, Mr Hull was unable to explain the relevance of the explicit sexual details, whether to the investigation of the complaint of the daughter, or to any possible future complaint that the Claimant might make against ND for his violence. The details were plainly irrelevant. I find that his purpose in obtaining and recording this information was not for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. There can have been no purpose other than his own gratification, and that is what I find his purpose was.

[156]In reaching this finding, and those that follow, I have borne in mind that the allegations against Mr Hull are very serious. I have also borne in mind his long public service in the Navy and the police. And the fact that statements were recorded as they were meant that they were bound to be seen by other officers. So any wrongdoing apparent from the statements would expose Mr Hull to risk of attracting critical attention from his superiors, as in fact happened. All these considerations weigh in support of his case. I have nevertheless reached the findings that I have.

[157]I turn now to the allegations of touching. These allegations range from acts which the Claimant could (and at first did) interpret as intended to comfort her, up to acts which were plainly sexual, of which the most serious was the incident in which she said he pushed himself between her legs when she was seated at the edge of the settee.

[158]So far as the comforting acts are concerned, Mr Hull's evidence has varied. In interview he sometimes denied any touching, and sometimes admitted touching by way of reassurance. In his written evidence in chief, touching is not mentioned, and no explanation is given of how he said he reassured her. In his oral evidence in chief he said that the Claimant did not ask him for a cuddle and that did not happen. He said the same in cross-examination, that he offered comfort but no cuddle. And he denied any other form of touching.

[159]I am sure that his admissions in interview that he did touch the Claimant's arm are true admissions. The question is whether it went further than that. I have found that Mr Hull's purpose in obtaining and recording the explicit detail was his own gratification. I ask myself if he had any other purpose in attending the Claimant's house. The obtaining and recording of the details of violence could be such a purpose. But he did that over so many hours, and in such detail, that that is also difficult for him to explain. The Claimant had not complained of offences against herself, and Mr Hull did not ask her if she wanted to complain. The incidents were large ly in Jersey, and so a matter for the Jersey authorities. While such matters could be relevant to the daughter's complaint (in a way that the sexual details could not), I find that the five visits were not for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime, even in so far as they were occupied in recording the incidents of violence against the Claimant. That is not a convincing explanation of the expenditure of such time and effort by a detective constable in these circumstances. I conclude that his purpose was to have a pretext for being with the Claimant. I also conclude that Mr Hull did touch her in the ways that the Claimant, in her witness statement of August 1998, alleges he did. I am sure of that.

[160]I find as a fact that, with the following exceptions, all that the Claimant said in her August 1998 witness statement is true (see paras 27 to 58). The first exception relates to her claims to have seen Mr Hull in the nightclub. It is notorious that evidence of identification is unreliable. And by the time of these alleged events the Claimant was already upset and suspicious about Mr Hull. The circumstances in the nightclub were not favourable to an accurate identification. I find that Mr Hull was not at the nightclub. As appears below, I have also rejected her evidence about seeing him at Southampton airport. She does not claim to have been close to Mr Hull there. In any event what she describes as having happened at Southampton would not amount to harassment.

[161]Another exception is the number of calls and visits. I find that the number of calls when Mr Hull actually spoke to the Claimant was probably about half the total of 70 which are recorded. I find that the number of visits was probably about 10 in all. I preferred the Claimant's account of a number of circumstances. Her account of the two telephone calls just after her complaint in July is more plausible than Mr Hull's, as is her account of how she knew he had been in Special Branch, and how she knew about his scar. In the end it was accepted that her only error in describing the scar was that she described it as shorter than it is.

[162]Subsequently to that witness statement, the Claimant has made other allegations of touching and questioning, in particular in her statement of February 1999, and in the Particulars of Claim in this action. The Claimant has demonstrated a tendency to misremember events, which is not uncommon in a witness who gives several accounts of the same incidents over a period of seve n years. I also recall the evidence of the experts. I have borne all this in mind before reaching my finding that her statement of August 1998 is true. And it is because of these matters that I am not sure that any of her new allegations made subsequently, or any of the additional details of her original allegations, are true. I do not find that they are true.

[163]The Claimant has led a troubled and unhappily eventful life. A number of other matters were raised in cross-examination some of them going back twenty years to when she was aged 26. I did not find that the investigations into these matters assisted me greatly on her credibility in relation to the main allegations in this case. It is clear that the Claimant is a vulnerable woman. There are discrepancies in different versions of her accounts of various matters, and there are some discrepancies between accounts of events involving Mr Hull which she has given, and accounts given by those from whom witness statements were taken in 1998 of what they said she had told them about the same incident. They did not give evidence, and I accept the Claimant's evidence. I do not find these discrepancies to be significant. More significant, as it seems to me, is the number of things she recounted which were common ground.

[164]The question then arises whether the touching I have found to have occurred was acceptable conduct.

[165]Even on Mr Hull's account of the touching, namely that it was normal comforting, I would find that it was unacceptable in the present case. There can be defences to a claim for battery, such as consent. Consent does not arise in this case, because Mr Hull denies any touching that is unacceptable, and so there is no evidence that consent was asked for or given.

[166]In any event consent could not arise in this case, which is one reason why the touching was unacceptable, however slight. It is important to recall what the relationship between the Claimant and Mr Hull was throughout the period complained of. He was a police officer responsible for investigating an allegation of rape and abuse made by the Claimant's daughter against the Claimant's former partner. The Claimant was undoubtedly very upset by the daughter's disclosure, and very eager to have ND arrested and punished. She was a witness, but, because of these facts, not a witness who would feel free to tell Mr Hull to go away if he was bothering her. She wanted to complete her statement in order to find out what was in her daughter's statement. And she wanted Mr Hull to arrest, and if need be to obtain the extradition of, ND. She was on any view a vulnerable woman, because she was a single mother trying to look after three children on slender means, trying to earn money through casual kissogram assignments. She was doubly vulnerable because her desire to see her daughter's assailant arrested made her to some extent a captive. Submission is not consent. She wanted to co-operate with Mr Hull, whatever he asked her to do. In my judgment these considerations also explain why the Claimant delayed for longer than she might otherwise have done before complaining. When she decided to complain, she followed her complaint through robustly, giving the evidence she did give at the disciplinary proceedings and tenaciously persisting to this trial.

[167]During the first interview Mr Hull found out how distressed the Claimant was. He did not ask her consent to carrying on the taking of statements concerning violence to herself (of which she might complain later) still less concerning her sexual conduct with ND, of which there was no likelihood of any complaint by her. It follows that if she submitted to being comforted by him, as she says she did at first, it was on an entirely false basis. He had wrongly put her in a position where she needed comforting. In doing so he abused his position as a public servant and he abused her trust in him as a police officer.

[168]So even on Mr Hull's own account I would find that he committed batteries when he cuddled her or comforted her. Had there been just the first interview, and had Mr Hull touched the Claimant spontaneously to comfort her, finding himself faced with a situation which he had not expected, I might have taken the view that that was acceptable. Because of the subsequent conduct, I find that all the touching was unacceptable and so a battery. As to the other, sexual, touching the Claimant alleges, it is plain that that was unacceptable from a police officer on duty. I have also accepted the Claimant's evidence as to the occasions, after the statements had been taken, and when Mr Hull visited her house and cuddled, or attempted to cuddle, her. She made clear to him that she was not in fact consenting, and that he was bothering her.

[169]These cuddling incidents also form a part of his whole course of conduct which amounted to harassment. As to the allegations of touching, there can of course be no defence under s.1(3)(a).

[170]I do not need to consider separately the facts of the visits and calls themselves, that is, whether, but for the associated cuddling, they would have been harassment, or would have been for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. At least to some extent, I would accept that that some visits and calls would have been appropriate. Unaccompanied by inappropriate familiarity they would probably not have caused the Claimant the distress they did cause. It is the sexual purpose that made them distressing and took them outside the scope of the statutory defence. While the visits subsequent to the taking of her statement clearly caused her less distress than the taking of the statements had done, I find that she did find these visits distressing.

[171]I have not overlooked the fact that during this time the Claimant was voluntarily discussing with Mr Hull the progress of the case and other matters, such as those involving her car and her portfolio. She was also accepting his help on these other matters. But these matters seem to me to be relevant at most to show the level of her distress, and so to damages.

[172]I have found that the obtaining of the detailed explicit information about the Claimant's sexual conduct was not for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. I also find that Mr Hull cannot discharge the burden of proving that his visits after the taking of the first statement were for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. If the appropriate legal test is an objective test of necessity and proportionality, I find that only very few visits were necessary, probably three, one to take a statement, one to read it back once typed, and one to disclose the contents of the joint interview of the daughter. But whether it be three or more visits that were necessary, the obtaining of the explicit information about the Claimant's sexual conduct was not necessary at all, and the telephone calls and visits were wholly disproportionate to what was needed in investigating the daughter's allegations.

[173]I have reached these conclusions as a matter of my own judgment. But it is satisfactory that my conclusion on the obtaining of the sexual information is consistent with the opinions expressed by the police witnesses. It is important that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 should not become a device for interfering with the police in their efforts to prevent and detect crime. Where there is evidence from police officers that a course of conduct is necessary and proportionate to the performance of their duties, that is a matter which the Court will consider carefully. There is no such evidence here. INJURY

[174]The Claimant was not challenged on her evidence to me as to her state of health. Not long after the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings her health suffered. In March 2000 she started to get very sick and attended doctors twice a week in Jersey. She states that patients have to pay in Jersey, but she does not include a claim for special damages for the costs she incurred. She had chest infections and inflammation of a hernia (developed in pregnancy) which her doctor attributed to stress. The move to Spain in September 2000 was prompted by this ill health. They went to stay with her husband's mother. She visited a doctor there two or three times a week, again at her own expense. The climate did not agree with her. The doctor recommended counselling which she could not afford. She felt her personality had changed totally and her temper had become uncontrollable. She states that although she had suffered in her relationship with ND, she had recovered from this and was a confident and outgoing person before her experience with Mr Hull. She was able to appear on the TV programmes about domestic violence and pursue other activities and hold down jobs. She had been a Supervisor of Hospitality and Promotions at a night club, after the short period during which she had worked doing Kissograms. She had also been a photographic model. Recently she has been doing voluntary work, which she enjoys and which she feels is good for her.

[175]On 8 May 2002 she attended Dr Plant, a highly qualified Consultant Psychiatrist, at his office in Winchester. In his report he states that he undertook a comprehensive background medical and social history. She told him substantially what is set out in the preceding paragraph. She said there were difficulties with her husband because of her aggression and violence with the change in her mental health. She said she had not previously had any contact with the Specialist Mental Health Services. She had been referred to general practitioners in 1991 and 1995 for counselling following ND's abusive treatment, and felt that she had got over the problems associated with her maltreatment in that relationship. Dr Plant does not set out the details of that maltreatment, as it was recorded in the statements taken by Mr Hull and as I have set it out above. But he does say that she had described extremely traumatic events while she was in that abusive relationship. She told Dr Plant of the interviews with Mr Hull, saying that the references to their sexual conduct together upset her and caused her to relive some of her experiences with ND, such as being pushed down the stairs. Dr Plant summarises the Claimant's complaints against Mr Hull. She told him, as she said in her witness statement for the trial, that she blamed Mr Hull for the fact that ND was released after he had been arrested (although that was not a complaint that was pursued at trial).

[176]Dr Plant describes the Claimant's symptoms. These include feeling physically ill and run down, fluctuations in mood, depression, fear of being on her own, loss of interest in activities she previously enjoyed, impairment of sleep, anger and irritability, aggression towards her husband and loss of interest in sex. Thoughts of the interviews with Mr Hull recurred in her mind, making her feel sick, and images of ND appeared in her mind associated with her husband.

[177]Dr Plant's conclusions include the following. The Claimant is suffering from two related psychiatric disorders. First she is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as defined in the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 4th ed), and the similar diagnosis as defined in the ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases 10th revision). She is also suffering from moderate to severe Depressive Disorder defined in the ICD-1- and a Major Depressive Disorder of Moderate Severity, as defined in the DSM IV. He said it is difficult to establish when these disorders began, noting that the Claimant indicated that she had never experienced such symptoms until 1999 when she was in Jersey. As a result of her past abusive relationship, she is likely to have been vulnerable to experience PTSD and a Depressive Disorder. He concludes that, if her account of the police interviews is correct, this is likely to have been traumatic for her, leading to the development of a Depressive Disorder and the experience of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

[178]On 16th September 2004 the Claimant was interviewed by Dr Reveley, also a highly qualified Consultant Psychiatrist, who had been instructed by the Defendant. She had copies of the five statements taken by Mr Hull, and fuller background information than had been available when Dr Plant first saw the Claimant. Dr Reveley's opinion included the following. The Claimant had had psychiatric problems in the past. The Claimant shows many of the features of a disorder of emotional development, leading to abnormal personality traits of the Cluster B type, as described in DSM-IV. A variety of conditions are associated with such traits, including somatisation. Dr Reveley disagrees with Dr Plant on his opinion that events sensitized the Claimant and that she then developed PTSD. PTSD is caused by a traumatic stressor which overwhelms the individual's psychological defences so suddenly and with such extreme force that no meaningful resistance can be offered, thereby triggering an immediate reaction of intense fear, helplessness or horror, which in turn leads to the re-experiencing symptoms of PTSD. DSM IV defines PTSD in terms of six criteria. The first of these is that the person must have experienced, witnessed, or been confronted with an event involving death, serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the self or others. In her contacts with Mr Hull (as described to Dr Reveley) the Claimant did not describe such an event, and her description of her contacts with Mr Hull make it very unlikely indeed that there was any trigger for PTSD associated with his conduct. On the other hand, it is likely that the actions of ND could have led to the development of this condition. Dr Reveley considers it likely that the Claimant did develop PTSD in association with experiences with ND. In such circumstances, any reminder of the past events would cause a transient return to PTSD symptomatology. That was likely to have occurred when the Claimant was told of the daughter's disclosures, and subsequently during the interviews with Mr Hull. But Dr Reveley is strongly of the view that it is not psychiatrically plausible to suggest that the Claimant developed any new PTSD symptoms, or any psychiatric condition, as a result of her contact with Mr Hull.

[179]In a joint statement dated 9 December 2004, made after discussions between them, the two experts remained of the opinions previously expressed. Dr Reveley accepted that in general terms, sexual assault or stalking can have sufficient impact to lead to PTSD, but did not consider that the history, as given by the Claimant, is consistent with the emergence of PTSD, or other psychiatric disorder, resulting from her contact with Mr Hull. Dr Plant agreed that straightforward and sensitive police enquiry could have caused a transient reawakening of the previous PTSD symptomatology.

[180]As to treatment, Dr Reveley considers that the Claimant would benefit from counselling and support. Dr Plant considers that she should be offered the psychological treatment of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and may require up to eighteen sessions of such treatment for her PTSD and depressive disorder.

[181]In evidence Dr Reveley made clear that she was not making a firm diagnosis of somatisation or PTSD. She said that after discussing the case with Dr Plant, she considered his view of the matter was so unusual as not to fall within the normal range on diagnosis. She made clear that she was not saying that the Claimant probably has PTSD, but was saying that if the Claimant had PTSD, then it results from her contacts with ND.

[182]These opinions were expressed by the two experts on the basis of the information available to them. I have to make my decision in the light of the findings of fact that I have made, which were, of course, not available to the experts.

[183]On the basis of the facts that I have found, I do not think it probable that the Claimant developed PTSD, or any other psychiatric disorder, as a result of her contact with Mr Hull. My reasons are those given by Dr Reveley. I do not have to form a view as to whether the Claimant does in fact have PTSD. If I had to reach a finding, I would conclude that the Claimant has not satisfied the burden of proof on this point. THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES

[184]Both counsel and the Claimant referred me to the JSB guidelines and to authorities. The Claimant had received help on this from her former legal advisers. In the light of my findings, damages for psychiatric injury do not arise. But the JSB guidelines remain relevant, as they are in defamation actions, as figures against which to assess the reasonable amount of any general damages.

[185]There has been no evidence of any other damages, general or special. If the Claimant is more vulnerable on the labour market, as she claims, it is not the result of the injuries I have found she suffered.

[186]Mr Weddell referred me to Thompson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

[1998] QB 498

. This case was concerned with unlawful arrest and assault, not harassment, but is nonetheless of general assistance. In those cases where compensation is for loss of liberty, there is also compensation for something akin to pain and suffering ( ibid p512C). There may also be an award of aggravated and exemplary damages. While there is a penal element in aggravated damages, they are primarily to be awarded to compensate for injury to a claimant's proper pride and dignity and the consequences of her being humiliated. Aggravating features can also include the way that the litigation and trial are conducted ( ibid p516C, 518F). Ordinarily aggravated damages should not be as much as twice the basic damages ( ibid p516F, 519H).

[187]Exemplary damages may be awarded for oppressive and arbitrary behaviour by police officers when that deserves the exceptional remedy of exemplary damages ( ibid p516H). But that will only be so where the basic award, including any aggravated damages, is in the circumstances inadequate punishment for the defendant ( ibid p517A). Where there have been disciplinary proceedings, that is a relevant consideration in deciding whether there should be an award of exemplary damages ( ibid p518C). If an award is to be made, the means of the officer whose conduct is in question are not relevant to any award against the Chief Constable, but only to any claim for indemnity against the officer ( ibid p517G).

[188]The guideline figures for a basic award were given as £500 for the first hour during which the claimant is deprived of her liberty, rising to £3000 for a period of 24 hours ( ibid p515D-E). For malicious prosecution the guideline figures are £2000 to £10,000 for a prosecution lasting as long as two years, the higher figure being for a case in the Crown Court.

[189]The Claimant referred to Vento v West Yorkshire Police

[2002] EWCA Civ 1871

;

[2003] ICR 318

. That was an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a claim for sex discrimination against the Claimant's former employer. Compensation for injury to feelings may be awarded in such cases under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 s66(4). In that case the court set out guidelines for compensation for injury to feelings as distinct from compensation for psychiatric and similar personal injury. The top band (£15,000 to 20,000) is for the most serious cases such as a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment on grounds of sex or race. The middle band (£5,000 to £15,000) is for other serious cases. The third band (£500, to £5,000) is for less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one off occurrence.

[190]The present case is not one of an isolated or one off incident. On the other hand, the most serious harassment was on the occasions of obtaining the statements including the personal information. On those occasions the Claimant suffered great distress. On the subsequent visits which Mr Hull made to her house, she did not suffer such distress. Moreover, while the obtaining of the sexually explicit information was highly intrusive, the touching was at a relatively low level of indecency or seriousness compared with some cases of sexual harassment involving physical contact (for example the touching in Wainwright ). In the present case, the Claimant would have suffered some distress in any event, arising out of the disclosures of her daughter and a proper and sensitive investigation of them.

[191]There is no point in seeking to distinguish the batteries from the harassment. The batteries themselves caused no damage independently of the harassment of which they were a part.

[192]Taking account of the guidance from all the sources referred to above, I consider that the appropriate award for anxiety and injury to feelings over the period between February and July 1998 is £10,000. However, it did not stop there. Mr Hull has throughout denied all her allegations. As a result, for the period July 1998 to March 2000 she suffered further. She had to relive all these matters in giving further statements and in attending at the disciplinary proceedings when these matters were all aired in front of a wider number of people, and when she was cross-examined vigorously. She was, of course, vindicated by the findings in those proceedings, but they did not cover her complaints of touching. And in those proceedings, as in these, she did have the benefit of four police officers attending to give evidence in support of her complaint. Something similar has occurred in the course of these proceedings. Again she has had to suffer while the proceedings were prepared, reliving the events in new sessions for taking statements, followed by the trial itself. I have set out above the times taken in the hearing of evidence. The conduct of the case by the Chief Constable was such that the distress to the Claimant by his interventions alone would have been very limited. But the Defendant's defence of this action resulted in the intervention in the trial of Mr Hull, and the position is otherwise for Mr Hull. He caused the Claimant to undergo a prolonged cross-examination including questions of the most sensitive nature, challenging her credibility. She then had to listen to Mr Hull continue to deny everything, including the correctness of the findings of the disciplinary tribunal, and to cross-examine him on the incidents which had caused her distress in the first place. For this I award a further sum of £10,000 by way of aggravated damages.

[193]I have considered whether there should be an award of exemplary damages in this case. I have decided that there should not. The conduct in question was undoubtedly oppressive and arbitrary conduct on the part of a police officer. But there have already been disciplinary proceedings in respect of part of the conduct complained of, and Mr Hull has been punished in those proceedings. The Chief Constable has behaved properly throughout. Once the complaint was made in July 1998 it was taken seriously and addressed with the same sensitivity on the part of himself and his officers as has been demonstrated in the conduct of his case before me. Finally I consider that the award of damages in the sums mentioned is adequate both to compensate the Claimant and to punish the defendant. CONTRIBUTION

[194]The claim for contribution is made pursuant to the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. That provides, in s.2, that the amount of contribution "shall be such as may be found by the Court to be just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person's responsibility for the damage in question".

[195]Mr Hull submits that the Part 20 contribution claim should not succeed. He complains that he was not given adequate guidance or support, although nothing of the kind is pleaded. He claimed in evidence (but I do not accept) that DI Stone (as he then was) actually said that the statements he had taken were good. I have rejected the submission that there was any material difference of opinion between DC Colebrooke and DI Dodds on what can and cannot be asked by a police officer of a mother whose daughter complains of rape. I see no basis for Mr Hull's submission that he has been badly let down by the Defendant. The position is entirely the reverse.

[196]In my judgment there can be no answer to the Part 20 claim. It is just and equitable that Mr Hull should indemnify the Defendant fully.

KD v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HAMPSHIRE [2005] EWHC 2550 (QB)

Cited in 4 later judgments