| |
|
|
|
|
|
This is defined by Section 89 of the Police Act 1996.
The key point in either case will be whether or not the constable was acting in the execution of his duty – and therefore lawfully - at the time of the offence. There is no statutory definition of a police officer’s duty, but it has been said by the courts to include taking all steps necessary to protect life and limb, to keep the peace, to prevent crime and to detect crime.
The charge of wilful obstruction is most likely to be brought where a police officer was exercising his common law powers to prevent a breach of the peace. At common law, a police officer is empowered to take all steps reasonably necessary to prevent a breach of the peace. This includes not only the power of arrest, but any other step he considers necessary.
Say, for example, you are doing a demo outside an office premises and the police instruct you to stand on the opposite side of the road. You refuse and are arrested, and you’re later charged with wilful obstruction of the police. If the case gets to court, the magistrates would have to decide whether or not the police were acting in the execution of their duty at the time. The police officer would have to show that moving you across the road was necessary to perform his duty as a police officer – for example to prevent crime, to protect the safety of the public or to prevent a breach of the peace.
The threat of arrest for obstruction is widely used and abused by the police to make protestors do as they are told. This should be challenged wherever possible. Assaulting a police officer under this section is an arrestable offence, but obstruction is not. If the police tell you what to do on a demo, ask what power they are exercising. If there is no Section 14 or 12 in force, then they can only rely on their powers at common law.
The High Court has ruled that the police are acting in the course of their duty when they remove trespassers from premises. It follows from this that if, during the course of a protest, you resist the use of reasonable force by the police in making you leave, you could be charged with obstruction.
You cannot be guilty of assaulting a police officer under Section 89(1) if it can be shown that he was not acting in the course of his duty. However, this does not mean that you would not be liable for one of the other assault or public order offences – for example common assault - and you are more likely to be charged with one of these offences if the prosecution foresees problems in proving that the constable was acting in the execution of his duty.
Arrest and Punishment
Both offences under Section 89 are summary only. Assault of a police
officer is punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment, and obstruction by up
to 1 month.
Assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty is an “arrestable offence” as it is contained within the schedule of arrestable offences in Section 24 of PACE. Wilful obstruction of a constable is not an arrestable offence, but the police have alternative powers of arrest for breach of the peace and under Section 25 PACE.
[<<14. Offences agains the person][Contents][16. Home Demos>>]
This article is for information purposes only; its aim is to let people to know their full rights under UK law. Nothing on these pages is absolute as the law is always changing; if in doubt contact a trusted solicitor for further advice. We do not encourage you to break the law.
Please feel free to copy and distribute these articles to fellow activists, but do not alter the text in any way. These articles are anti-copyright for non-commercial purposes. Please visit www.freebeagles.org for the latest version of our articles and to learn about the freeBEAGLES Ethical Open Document License under which this document is distributed.
If you see any errors, or we have missed any changes to the legal situation please contact us as soon as possible, at info@freebeagles.org, as wrong information can prove costly to people's freedom.
© Copyright freeB.E.A.G.L.E.S.; last updated: September 2004