Matthew Holdcroft acted for the Defendant in R (on the application of Cordell) v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police [2009] EWHC in which Beatson J considered two questions: (i) whether or not the Defendant had a procedure in place to consider applications to expunge cautions, and then whether or not there was the facility for a caution to be actually expunged; and (ii) whether or not the Defendant had made an error of law in his decision not to expunge a caution administered to the Claimant.

Mr Cordell had punched a man on the nose for insulting his wife. He was arrested and taken to the Police Station where he was interviewed. In his interview, Mr Cordell made some admissions (for example, that, at the point where he punched the victim the fight had already ended) but he also, at certain points, contended that he was acting in self-defence and protecting his wife. Mr Cordell was offered the opportunity to avail himself of legal advice but refused. He accepted a caution but subsequently wrote to the Chief Constable complaining that the caution had been administered when he was in an injured daze and that he had not understood its implications. Reviews were conducted by the officers, Force Solicitor, and Professional Standards Unit of the Nottinghamshire Police and by the IPCC in 2006-7. The complaint was found to be unsubstantiated. In 2009, the Claimant applied to the Nottinghamshire Police’s Data Protection Unit to review his caution, which they refused due to the earlier reviews conducted and then further refused on 16 April 2009.

As to issue (i), Beatson J found that there was a procedure in place, albeit one which was not written in a formal document. The evidence of the Force Solicitor on that procedure and the statistics as to cautions quashed, which was unchallenged, showed the existence of a proper procedure which was compliant with Home Office Circular 30/2005.

Beatson J considered an alternative submission made by the Claimant that the Defendant ought to have considered the review of a caution as a "Direction and Control" matter and that, therefore, Home Office Circular 19/2005 applied. Beatson J rejected that submission relying on R (on the application of North Yorkshire Police Authority) v IPCC & ors [2010] EWHC 1690 (Admin) to the effect that "Direction and Control" matters governed broad, operational decisions and not decisions on particular cases.

As to issue (ii), Beatson J held that the appropriate test was whether, on the evidence available to them, those reviewing the caution were Wednesbury unreasonable in deciding that the claim of self-defence only related to the first stage of the fight and not the point at which the Defendant punched the victim. On the evidence, Beatson J decided that they were not unreasonable in so deciding.

The claim was, therefore, dismissed and the Claimant was ordered to pay costs.

Matthew Holdcroft has extensive experience in judicial reviews and civil claims against the police.