|
|
|
CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE - ARREST – UNLAWFUL ARREST – ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT – APPREHENDED BREACH OF THE PEACE – POLICE HAVING HONEST BELIEF BREACH OF THE PEACE IMMINENT – CLAIMANT NOT ACTING UNLAWFULLY – WHETHER REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE BREACH OF PEACE IMMINENT – WHETHER ARREST UNLAWFUL – DETENTION FOLLOWING ARREST – WHETHER FALSE IMPRISONMENT
The claimant, M, had been employed as an assistant warden at a youth hostel. M’s manager, B, decided to dismiss him and the police were contacted. When B informed M that he was dismissing him and requested him to leave, M refused. A police constable tried to persuade M to leave but he refused.
The police officer arrested M ‘in order to prevent a breach of the peace’. M was taken into police custody and released later that evening. A summons was issued against M but proceedings against him were withdrawn. M began proceedings against the defendant alleging, inter alia, that he had been unlawfully arrested and falsely imprisoned.
The judge concentrated on the police officer’s evidence and concluded that that had given the police officer reasonable grounds to believe that a breach of the peace would have been committed by M in the immediate future although he had not yet committed any such breach. The judge therefore dismissed M’s claim. M appealed against that decision on the grounds, inter alia, that the judge had been wrong to find that the police officer had had reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace would have been committed. M submitted that the demeanour alleged against him had been insufficient to amount to reasonable grounds to believe that he was about to be violent or threaten violence to anyone. He further contended that he had been arrested because he had refused to leave the hostel, not because his demeanour was indicative of impending violence, and that the judge had therefore been in error.
Held The appeal would be allowed.
Although a police constable might exceptionally have power to arrest a person whose behaviour was lawful but provocative, it was a power which ought to be exercised by him only in the clearest of circumstances and when he was satisfied on reasonable grounds that a breach of the peace was imminent. In the instant case, the judge had been wrong to rule against M’s submission that the evidence taken at its highest was not capable of supporting the defence to unlawful arrest that the police officer had reasonable grounds for believing that violence would have been committed in the immediate future.
There was no evidence that M had been violent that evening either towards the police officer or B and there was no evidence that anyone else was in the vicinity. M had, therefore, in effect been arrested because he had refused to leave the premises, such refusal not being accompanied by violence or the threat of it. The defence to the claim for wrongful arrest, and with it false imprisonment, therefore fell away and in consequence M was entitled to judgment on those two claims.
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