The settlement
in the Taylor case, and the confidentiality clause
9. The three parties to the case, Mr Taylor, Greater
Manchester Police, and Mutual Municipal Insurance Ltd (MMI), who
were the force's insurers, came to an agreement on the day Mr
Taylor was due to begin giving evidence.[8]
The settlement involved a payment to Mr Taylor, and payment also
of Mr Taylor's costs.
10. Greater Manchester Police stated at the time
that "That payment is to be made on the basis that [the former
Chief Constable] Sir James Anderton's denial of liability is maintained,
repeated and continued, and is to be made on commercial grounds
only, having regard to the costs of the proceedings and the fact
that Mr Taylor has the benefit of a legal aid certificate to pursue
the proceedings".[9]
During oral evidence it was clarified further that MMI, who under
the insurance policy had control of the handling of the case,
had indicated to Greater Manchester Police that the overall liability
being faced in the case was approaching what they considered to
be the maximum for which they were liable under the insurance
policy and that therefore, if the police wished to pursue the
case further, the Police Authority and the force would have to
bear any further costs.[10]
The costs involved were, we were told, running at £30,000
per day,[11] and in the
light of this it was decided that it would be an improper use
of public money to pursue the matter further, particularly since
even if the case was won they would not be able to recover their
own costs from the legally-aided plaintiff.[12]
11. Mr Taylor was also reported as being unhappy
at having to settle, having been seeking a much higher sum, but
was effectively forced to do so by the fact that he faced losing
his legal aid if he were to reject what his counsel considered
to be a reasonable offer.[13]
12. It was a term in the settlement that the level
of damages and costs were to remain confidential.[14]
This confidentiality clause was included at the initiative of
Greater Manchester Police, though it was not made a condition
precedent to the settlement terms,[15]
and, Mr Wilmot told us, "it emerged from various meetings
and discussions which took place with the interested parties during
the final weeks of the case".[16]
13. The settlement having received the consent of
the court, the parties did not feel it proper to reveal the sums
when the Committee originally asked them to do so in a letter
sent to them in February. The Chief Constable made clear however
during the oral evidence session that, given the powers of a Committee
of this House to require the production of evidence, he was ready
to give the information if the Committee specifically sought it.
We are advised by Speaker's Counsel[17]
that, quite apart from the powers of the House, he would not have
been putting himself in any danger of committing a contempt of
court or of breaching an order of the court by giving the information.
Nevertheless, for the purposes of this inquiry, we saw no need
to pursue further the demand for the precise figure involved.
14. However, the Taylor case was in fact one of a
series of four cases,[18]
one of which had already been settled (with a similar confidentiality
clause) and two of which were still outstanding at the time.[19]
Mr Wilmot has been able to help the Committee substantially by
explaining that the total sum for damages and costs of all the
parties involved in the four cases was £10,593,574.[20]
15. This seems to us to be an enormous sum and, even
if in this particular case most of the sum was paid by an insurance
company, it serves to emphasise the importance of the issues involved.
The Chief Constable agreed[21]
that it was almost certainly the largest such sum Greater Manchester
Police had been involved in since he became Chief Constable in
1991, and we know of no larger comparable payment by any other
force. Nevertheless, the point at issue for the Committee is not
the level of the sum that was paid in this particular case, but
the more general issue of whether it was right for confidentiality
to have been attached to it. It is enough for these purposes to
know that the payments ran to several million pounds.
a 1 
