|
|
|
Arrest - Arrest without warrant - Breach of the peace - Apprehended breach of the peace - Policeman having honest belief that a breach of the peace was imminent - Plaintiff in fact acting lawfully - Whether arrest thereby unlawful.
The plaintiff called the police after he had been locked out of his home
following a family argument. The police officers established that his family
did not want him to go back into the house, and tried to persuade him to go
away and cool down. The plaintiff refused, insisting that he wished to return
to the house. He was then arrested because the arresting officer thought that
if he remained and got back into the house an argument and violence would
ensue, which would constitute a breach of the peace. The plaintiff commenced
proceedings against the Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, claiming
damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. It was contended for the
Chief Constable that his arrest was lawful, having been effected on the ground
that the police officer had reasonably apprehended that a breach of the peace
was about to occur or was imminent if he did not arrest the plaintiff. It
had been conceded before the judge that the police officer had honestly believed
that arrest was necessary to prevent a breach of the peace and, in the light
of that concession, the only remaining question was whether there were reasonable
grounds in law for the arrest and subsequent detention of the plaintiff. The
judge found that the police officer had had reasonable grounds for his honest
belief and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff appealed.
The appeal would be allowed.
The common law power of a police constable to arrest where no actual breach of the peace had taken place, but where he apprehended that such a breach might be caused by apparently lawful conduct was exceptional, and should only be exercised in the clearest of circumstances and when the constable was satisfied on reasonable grounds that a breach of the peace was about to occur or was imminent. There had to be a sufficiently real and present threat to the peace to justify the extreme step of depriving of his liberty a citizen who was not at the time acting unlawfully. The factors identified by the judge, in the instant case, did not measure up to a sufficiently serious or imminent threat to the peace to justify arrest. Accordingly, although the police officer had been acting honestly and from the best of motives, he had not had reasonable grounds for the arrest.
Albert v Lavin [1981] 3 All ER 879 considered.
Nigel Ley (instructed by Reay & Co, Liverpool) for the plaintiff.
Anne Whyte (instructed by Weightmans, Liverpool) for the Chief Constable.
Kate O’Hanlon Barrister. [hits in this block] [next case with hits >>]
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: November 2003