Unlawful Arrest in UK Law

It is the arresting officer's own account of the information which he had which matters, not what was observed by or known to anyone else. It is the arresting officer's own account of the information which he had which matters, not what was observed by or known to anyone else.

So it is the facts known by or the information given to the officer who effects the arrest or detention to which the mind of the independent observer must be applied. So it is the facts known by or the information given to the officer who effects the arrest or detention to which the mind of the independent observer must be applied.

My reasons are these: this statute is concerned with the safety of all of Her Majesty's subjects who use the roads in this country. The most effective way to do it is by arresting him then and there. The police have to act at once, on the facts as they appear on the spot: and they should be justified by the facts as they appear to them at the time and not on any ex post facto analysis of the situation.

There is no question that a police officer, like anyone else, may be liable in tort to a person who is injured as a direct result of his acts or omissions. So he may be liable in damages for assault, unlawful arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution, and also for negligence. Instances where liability for negligence has been established are Knightly v. Johns [1982] I W.L.R. 349 and Rigby v. Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1242.

In some instances the imposition of liability may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind. A great deal of police time, trouble and expense might be expected to have to be put into the preparation of the defence to the action and the attendance of witnesses at the trial. The result would be a significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime.

Whilst of course it may be that it is quite unnecessary to arrest a suspect who will voluntarily attend an interview, as it was with the schoolteacher in Richardson, it is not the case that a voluntary attendance is always as effective a form of investigation as interview after arrest. Section 29 of the Act reminds officers of their duty, if inviting voluntary attendance, to tell the suspect that he may leave at any time he chooses.

We are emboldened to say that there is a breach of the peace 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.