Articles

Contact

Links

Case Law

Security

McGrogan v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police
[2002] EWCA Civ 86
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
MANTELL LJ, WALL J
12 FEBRUARY 2002

POLICE - FALSE IMPRISONMENT – ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT – REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT OFFENCE WOULD BE COMMITTED IF CLAIMANT RELEASED – TEST TO BE APPLIED TO ASCERTAIN LEGALITY OF CONTINUED DETENTION

On a Saturday afternoon the claimant was arrested by members of the defendant’s police force and detained on suspicion of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on M. A police officer took a statement from M in which she stated that she did not wish to make a complaint against the claimant. That officer, having had previous experience of disputes between the claimant and M, considered that M did not wish to complain out of fear and a wish to avoid further contact with the claimant. He was concerned for M’s safety if the claimant were released, believing it to be highly probable that he would return to M’s home, which was within walking distance of the police station where the claimant was being detained, and that a breach of the peace would occur. An information was laid against the claimant for causing a breach of the peace, and it was decided to detain the claimant, until he could be brought before a court on the Monday morning, under the common law power to prevent a further breach of the peace.

On the Saturday evening and early on the Sunday morning, the claimant’s detention was reviewed and on both occasions the decision was taken to continue to detain him. On the Sunday afternoon, a further review was carried out. The officers found that there was no violence or difficulty with the claimant, but that he did not express any remorse. The claimant was not asked where he would go if he was released. The claimant was brought before the court on the Monday and subsequently released.

The claimant brought a claim for damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. The judge found that the detention of the claimant from late on the Sunday morning was not justified on the basis that there was no longer any real apprehension based on reasonable grounds that he would have renewed his breach of the peace, nor had there been any proper assessment of that risk. The defendant appealed on the grounds that, although the judge had correctly formulated the test to be applied to assess the legality of the continued detention, he had not applied it correctly to the facts in issue.

Held – The appeal would be allowed. The judge had correctly formulated the test to be applied, which was that the power to detain to prevent a further breach of the peace was limited to circumstances where there was a real, rather than fanciful, apprehension, based on all the circumstances, that if released the prisoner would commit or renew his breach of the peace within a short time.

Furthermore, the officer making that decision had to have an honest belief, based on objectively reasonable grounds, that further detention was necessary to prevent a breach of the peace. That test was of general application where a person was to be detained in connection with an actual or threatened breach of the peace. Furthermore, the practice of the police to treat any person so detained as if the Codes of Practice to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applied was plainly correct.

However, the judge had failed to give sufficient weight to a number of important factors in the instant case, including the fears M had expressed that the claimant would return and assault her and the fact that her accommodation was within walking distance of the police station and therefore a likely place for the claimant to go. Had the judge properly applied the test he had formulated, he would have concluded that the continued detention of the claimant until he could be brought before the court on the Monday morning was justified.