IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE NO: PTA 1999/3039/C

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

Thursday 4th May 2000

B e f o r e :

- - - - - - - -

(Respondent)

- v -

(Applicant)

- - - - - - - -

Computer Aided Transcript of Smith Bernal Reporting Ltd

180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HG Telephone

No: 020 721 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - -

The Applicant appeared in person

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented

- - - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T

(As approved by the Court)

- - - - - - - -

Crown Copyright

Thursday 4th May 2000

1. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: This is an application for permission to appeal against an all proceedings order made against the applicant, Mr Andre John-Salakov, by the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division on 18th November 1999. Mr Salakov has adduced in his grounds of appeal various reasons why he complains of that order and has supplemented them in argument before me today. I will in due course deal briefly with what Mr Salakov said in his written application and then address more closely the two points that he has concentrated on this morning.

2. It is necessary to say something about the background of the case, bearing in mind, in particular, what was said in Re: Vernazza [1959] 1 WLR 522 that it is necessary for a court, applying the present statute, to have a look at the whole history, an approach that was adopted by the Divisional Court in this case.

3. Mr Salakov was in 1993 sentenced to a period of four years’ imprisonment. Whilst he was in prison he instituted a number of legal proceedings, some of which I shall have to revert to. On his release he instituted other proceedings, both in his own name and under the auspices of an organisation called the Public Law Centre South Norwood Branch, an organisation in which Mr Salakov appears to be the leading force. It appears that in the course of his work for that centre and with it he held himself out as having rights of audience or rights to represent people in legal disputes, which was not the case.

4. In April 1997 the activities of Mr Salakov and of the Public Law Centre came to the attention of the police, who raided that organisation’s premises. It was alleged on behalf of the Attorney General that Mr Salakov obstructed the police’s enquiries, more particularly by taking mischievous court actions against the police and other persons.

5. In July 1997 Mr Salakov was charged with a series of offences of dishonesty, including the impersonation of a barrister. He was remanded in custody to prevent interference with witnesses.

6. The trial of those actions started in July 1998 but had to be terminated in September 1998, it was alleged because false evidence had been given on Mr Salakov’s behalf by an associate of his. It appears that proceedings are on foot in respect of that false testimony.

7. At a retrial or reinstated trial the applicant was convicted on 26th February 1999 of nineteen offences of fraud, for which he was sentenced to a period of 30 months’ imprisonment, though, because of the time that he had spent on remand, he was released immediately or very shortly thereafter.

8. Since that release in February 1999 he has instituted a substantial number of proceedings against people who were involved in the investigation and trial of those fraud offences.

9. The total position is that Mr Salakov has instituted 31 civil actions and has attempted to lay information against police officers involved in the criminal investigations taken against him.

10. I have considered, as did the Divisional Court, a significant number of the actions that Mr Salakov has brought. When he was in prison on the first occasion he instituted a number of actions, claiming negligent misstatement, malicious falsehood and other matters. A number of such actions were struck out, specifically having been held by the judge concerned to have been vexatious. On one occasion at least costs were order against Mr Salakov on an indemnity basis. It appears that no such payment has been made in respect of those costs or any other costs. Proceedings were also taken by him against the Governor of HM Prison at Bullingdon by way of judicial review, an application that was refused by Turner J in November 1995. Then there was a particular piece of civil litigation in which Mr Salakov sued the prison governor, but also doctors in the prison, his solicitor and a lady who apparently had formerly been his partner. Extreme allegations were made in those proceedings. A lengthy judgment was delivered after most meticulous consideration by a Deputy Judge of the High Court, Mr Wingate Saul QC. He concluded specifically in respect of a number of those claims that they were indeed vexatious.

11. I do not intend, any more than the Divisional Court did, to set out the nature of the claims in detail. But, having looked at them, I do respectfully agree with what Newman J said in the Divisional Court "that they were marked by a degree of intemperate, wholly unfounded, salacious and deeply unpleasant allegations".

12. There are various libel actions which I pass over.

13. I come then to what has been going on in the present year. Mr Salakov appears to have been brought a significant number of actions against persons who were involved in the criminal proceedings against him arising out of the affairs of the Public Law Centre. That campaign has, I have to say, all the hallmarks of somebody who is seeking to harass not merely public officials, but also persons who have found themselves in the position of ordinary citizens giving evidence in the case. There is no clear or good reason for those proceedings being brought. I respectfully share the view, expressed by the Divisional Court, that this conduct has all the hallmark of vexatious behaviour.

14. I turn to the grounds upon which it is sought to appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court.

15. I pass over complaints about the fact that the Attorney General himself has not authorised the initiation of this application and also the point that Mr Salakov has made today that all the individual actions looked at individually were, if not justified, at least not forbidden by the court.

16. That, of course, is true. Our process, save in particular respects, as in judicial review, permits a person who thinks he has a legal grievance to come to court without restriction. That is one of the most important parts of our process. But that carries with it a contingent obligation on the part of the litigant not to use that process vexatiously. Time and again, as I have already indicated, judges have found Mr Salakov in individual cases behaving vexatiously and having his proceedings struck out.

17. There is a complaint in the written grounds that the Divisional Court behaved in a racist or racialist fashion during the hearing before it. There is absolutely no basis for that complaint. The statement attributed to Simon Brown LJ does not appear on the transcript, and if such a complaint were to be made it would obviously have to be supported by cogent evidence, which this complaint is not. It is right to say that Mr Salakov has not repeated that before me today.

18. The real basis of his complaint is twofold. First of all, he has drawn attention to a particular action, Reference No HO9902011, where he was making complaints about the raid, if I can so describe it, on the Public Law Centre. He says that, as a result of a recent decision in another case, the police have returned to him some of the property that they removed from the Public Law Centre. That, he says, is a demonstration that, at least in that case, his proceedings were not vexatious.

19. I have looked again at the particular proceedings that Mr Salakov says were involved. Like a lot of his other actions they contain lengthy complaints about a named police officer. The only relief claimed in them was not for return of property but for what were described as exemplary or aggravated damages in the sum of £2,649,000 million. No attempt was made to explain that quantification. It is clearly an excessive - I dare go as far as to say completely unreasonable - assessment of any loss that Mr Salakov might have suffered. Whether or not there has been some rethinking about removal of property, I cannot accept that that isolated action in any way demonstrates that Mr Salakov has been in the remotest degree justified in the course that he has taken.

20. Secondly, Mr Salakov says this case is special because he complains about violations of his human rights: in particular, as I understood it, violation of his rights under Article 3 not to be submitted to inhumane treatment, that being, as I understand it, principally in relation to his incarceration in Bullingdon Prison, although possibly also to his trial.

21. Mr Salakov has had ample opportunity to assert his complaints about both of those matters. He has had ample opportunity to appeal, indeed is apparently appealing in respect of the outcome of the trial at Southwark Crown Court, and he has brought numerous proceedings in respect of his incarceration in Bullingdon. His difficulty is that no judge who has looked at this case and has considered it - and judges have considered it in great detail over the years - has been able to discern any merit at all in the complaints. It is because those complaints have been reiterated, contrary to court rulings, and because Mr Salakov has continued to use the processes of this Court for a wholly inappropriate manner, in the way that I have sought to describe and which was described in much more detail in the judgment of Divisional Court, that this order has been made against him. As Simon Brown LJ said in his judgment in the court below, the Court will not make such an order without the most careful consideration. It is a very serious order, but this is a case where in my judgment there is every justification for the order being made. I do not consider that there is any prospect at all of the Court of Appeal taking a different view of this matter from that which was taken in the Divisional Court. For that reason, I do not grant permission.