FORMER CHELMSFORD MAYOR DAVID LEE FAILS TO CLEAR HIS NAME IN HIGH COURT

In January 2012, David Lee, a 48-year-old former mayor of Chelmsford, unsuccessfully challenged a caution issued to him by police in a High Court case. Lee, of Rushleydale, Springfield, had received the caution from Essex Police in August 2008 after child pornography images were discovered on his home computer. The ex-Conservative councillor sought to have this caution overturned, claiming it was 'unlawful' due to procedural errors made by the officers when issuing it.

Lee argued that he was not provided with a written explanation of what accepting the caution entailed, which he believed violated Home Office guidelines introduced two months prior to his caution. He stated, "I was not given a written explanation of the consequences of the caution."

However, Lord Justice Aikens and Mr. Justice Maddison dismissed his appeal, indicating that Lee was 'well aware' of the implications of accepting the caution. The court was informed that during a police raid in November 2007—after Chelmsford Council provided information—four videos depicting child sexual abuse were seized on Lee’s computer equipment. Lee’s lawyers argued on January 20 that he was 'unaware' of the images but had admitted guilt at Braintree police station in August 2008 after being told he would receive a caution. Following that, he agreed to sign the sex offender register for two years and resigned from his council position.

Lee’s barrister, Leslie Thomas, contended that the caution should have been administered in accordance with guidelines detailed in a Home Office circular issued in June 2008. Mr. Thomas explained, 'Contrary to the advice in the circular, Lee was not given a written list of the consequences of accepting the caution.' The deficiencies, he argued, included failure to inform Lee of the potential impact on his ability to travel to certain countries and the possibility of future prosecution if new evidence emerged.

Mr. Thomas concluded, 'We claim the caution was unlawful due to procedural impropriety stemming from this failure to comply with the Home Office circular. The force made an error in law and breached his legitimate expectations.'

In contrast, Matthew Holdcroft representing Essex Police noted that, although officers admitted ignorance of the circular, Lee suffered no prejudice as the officers did explain the caution’s consequences. Justice Maddison dismissed Lee's claim, stating, 'Although the police officers were unaware of the circular, they did substantially comply with it. The outcome was that Mr. Lee was fully aware, before signing, of the implications and consented informedly.'

The court ordered Lee to pay £2,500 towards the police’s legal costs related to the case.