Can You Challenge A Criminal Conviction In A Civil Claim?

If you are convicted of a crime, can you contest that in a civil claim? In Vincent Friel v Dr Ian Brown [2019] CSOH 30 Lady Carmichael addressed the question of whether this would be an abuse of process or, rather, was permitted by section 10(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968. Section 10(2) states that in civil proceedings, a person shall be taken to have committed an offence of which he has been convicted unless the contrary is proved.

Friel was convicted under the Road Traffic Act 1988. He drove a car which struck two pedestrians. Friel was convicted despite lodging a special defence of automatism.

He later brought a civil claim against Dr Brown, who had prescribed the drug Tildiem. He alleged Tildiem caused a rapid fall in his blood pressure, leading to loss of consciousness and ultimately the accident.

Dr Brown argued the claim was an abuse of process. For Friel to succeed, he required to prove he had been rendered unconscious by Tildiem. This would indirectly challenge the conviction as the jury must have rejected his automatism defence. Such a challenge to a conviction was against public policy and was an abuse of process.

Friel argued that under section 10(2) Dr Brown had a statutory right to rely upon the conviction but that he had a right to prove that he had not committed the offence. The issues against Dr Brown were different from the issues raised at the trial.

Lady Carmichael considered the 'Birmingham bombers' case of Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529. During the criminal trial, there was an objection to evidence of confessions on the basis that they were obtained by violence. The trial judge ruled that the confessions were admissible. The House of Lords struck out Mr Hunter's...