Articles

Contact

Links

Case Law

Security

R v Howell
[1982] QB 416, [1981] 3 All ER 383, [1981] 3 WLR 501, 73 Cr App Rep 31, 146 JP 13, [1981] Crim LR 697, 125 Sol Jo 462

POLICE - THE PRESERVATION OF THE QUEEN’S PEACE - POWERS, DUTIES AND PRIVILEGES GENERALLY - POWERS - ARREST - ARREST — VALIDITY OF ARREST — CONDUCT LIKELY TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE PEACE

Notes

This case remains the leading authority on what constitutes a breach of the peace and in what circumstances the police may arrest you for it.

It defines a breach of the peace as occuring :

"whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance."

This establishes that there must be some level of violence, threatened or actual, in order to justify an arrest for breach of the peace.

The case upholds the common law right of the police or a member of the public to arrest for breach of the peace where:

"(1) a breach of the peace is committed in the presence of the person making the arrest or
(2) the arrestor reasonably believes that such a breach will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested although he has not yet committed any breach or
(3) where a breach has been committed and it is reasonably believed that a renewal of it is threatened"

This therefore establishes that where no breach has already occurred then the threat of a future breach must be imminent.

This case also establishes that not only must the constable honestly believe that the arrest for breach of the peace is necessary, but he must also have reasonable grounds for that belief.