Adam Tester v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Stephen Silber |
| Judgment Date | 16 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 1353 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/513/2014 |
| Date | 16 January 2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2015] EWHC 1353 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Sir Stephen Silber
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
CO/513/2014
Miss S Grundy (instructed by Lawtons Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr J Boyd (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Adam Tester appeals by way of case stated against a conviction recorded against him by the justices of the county of Hertfordshire acting for the local justice area of Western Central Hertfordshire, sitting at the St Albans Magistrates' Court on 30 September 2013. They convicted the appellant of an offence of assaulting PC 862 Scott, a constable in the execution of his duties, contrary to the provisions of Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. This provides that:
"89. Assaults on constables.
(1)Any person who assaults a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both."
At the appellant's trial, the court heard evidence from PC Scott, Sergeant Langley, the appellant, and a taxi driver, Hussein Zaman. There was also an admission in interview made by the appellant that he had pushed PC Scott to avoid being arrested.
The question for this court is:
"On the evidence as presented, was the court correct in finding that the officer was acting in the execution of his duty when he was pushed by the appellant?"
The critical factors in this case relate to whether or not the officer was acting in the execution of his duty at the moment when he was pushed.
The Facts
The background to this prosecution is that on the night of 19 April 2013, the appellant was in St Albans town centre at about 3 o'clock in the morning, together with a group of people.
Police Constable Scott and Police Officer Langley saw the appellant, who was under the influence of drink, approach a shopping trolley that had been left in the street but he walked away from it after seeing the police officers.
The appellant later was seen to walk in front of a taxi. Police Officer Langley left his vehicle to talk to the appellant, who ran away. Although he initially set off to pursue the appellant, Police Officer Langley stopped very shortly afterwards with the appellant stopping and turning to come back in a compliant manner. Before he returned to the officer, the appellant raised his little finger and told him to "fuck off" before turning, and running away again.
Having seen and heard this, Police Officer Scott gave chase in the police car and he pulled up alongside the appellant. The officer shouted at the appellant to stop, but he failed to comply with the instruction and ran off again.
The officer pursued on foot, and according to paragraph 22 of the case stated:
"The male stated he pursued the male in the car, went round the corner and saw the male on the other side of the road, walking towards him. The male removed a black top he was wearing in what the officer considered to be an attempt not to be recognised. He asked the male to stop for the following reasons: for being drunk and disorderly, obstructing the highway and being drunk on the highway. The male raised his arms, as if to say okay, and then the male lunged at him, hit against him and knocked him off his feet slightly. One arm came up as the male tried to run round him. It made contact around his chest area. The male tried to run around him, and he continued to hold on to him. The male ran into a concrete pillar near a furniture store, tried to dodge around the pillar, that he grabbed the upper body of the male. The male was struggling and then nudged him with his side causing him to fall backwards, whilst he was holding on to the male. Sergeant Langley assisted in restraining the handcuffing the male while he was on the floor."
The conclusion of the magistrates on this critical issue was that:
"Having considered all the evidence presented today, we find that you assaulted a police officer in the execution of his duty. That the Police Constable had reasonable grounds that an offence had been or was likely to be committed so he was acting in the execution of his duty. Finally, we consider that self defence was not an issue here."
The Submissions
The case for appellant, which has been put forward very ably Miss Shona Grundy, is that the officer was in the process of attempting to detain the appellant in a way which was an unlawful interference with his liberty at the time when he assaulted the officer. In consequence, the officer was not acting in the execution of his duty when the appellant pushed him and the appellant should no have been convicted
It is also said that the appellant was attempting to resist an unlawful attempt to detain him
The case for the appellant is really focusing on the chase that had occurred earlier and pursuing the appellant by Police Officer Scott. It was accepted that there was no evidence that showed that Police Officer Scott was intending to arrest the appellant.
Ms Grundy relies upon the very limited powers of the police to detain. She refers to the decision of Iqbal, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 273, in which the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered the issue of police restraint before arrests.
In giving judgment, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice referred to the powers of arrest and stop and search explaining:
"8. The duty of police officers to bring offenders to justice does not provide them with broad powers which they are entitled to exercise when and how they think it reasonable for them to do so, even if, assuming that they have the powers, it would be reasonable for them to do so.
[…]
"However, the powers do not extend to a right to detain a citizen because it would help the police...
To continue reading
Request your trial