Percival v Wright

The provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (the “1996 Act”) apply. Under those provisions, it is unlawful to publish in the United Kingdom a written report of a ruling made under s.40 of the 1996 Act or proceedings on an application for a ruling to be made under s.40, or to include in a relevant programme for reception in the United Kingdom a report of such matters, if (in either case) the report contains any matter other than that permitted.

This is my judgment following an application by the Defendant, Luke Jacob Pearce, made pursuant to s.40 of the 1996 Act, for a ruling on a question of law at a pre-trial hearing.

The Defendant is charged on an Indictment containing two counts of misconduct in public office, contrary to common law. Those charges arise out of the Defendant taking and distributing photographs of human remains found in a motor vehicle in the aftermath of a fatal car accident, while in the employment of the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”).

LUKE JACOB PEARCE on the 16th day of July 2024 while acting as a public officer, namely a civilian staff of the Metropolitan Police Service, wilfully misconducted himself and without reasonable excuse or justification to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in him namely abused his position as a civilian police staff in that he shared on IMessage a social media platform the photographic images containing human remains from the scene of a triple fatality Road Traffic Collision with a member of the public called Theresa Pearce without any legitimate policing purpose.”

The question of law that arises is whether the Defendant is a “public officer” for the purpose of the offence of misconduct in public office. It is common ground (and, in any event, the position in law) that the existence or otherwise of a public office is a question of law for the judge: see Cosford [2014] QB 81, at [38] per Leveson LJ (as he then was) giving judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).