Ahmed v Crown Prosecution Service
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Wyn Williams |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1272 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/5894/2016 |
| Date | 04 May 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Sir Wyn Williams
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
CO/5894/2016
Miss R Commander (instructed by G T Stewart) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr A Richardson (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is an appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the magistrates sitting at Stratford in East London whereby they convicted the appellant of the offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty. It is not disputed that the appellant assaulted Police Constable Pugh on 8 April 2016 while that officer was "on duty". It is submitted, however, on behalf of the appellant that at the time of the assault the officer was not acting in the execution of her duty.
The salient facts are these. On 23 February 2016 a judge sitting at the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court granted to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets an injunction against the appellant. The injunction prohibited the appellant from, amongst other things, congregating in a group of two or more people within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets except with immediate family members. On the same day, that is 23 February 2016, Police Constable Pugh personally served the appellant with the order.
Some weeks later, on 8 April 2016, Police Constable Pugh was on duty in uniform with a fellow officer within the Borough of Tower Hamlets when she saw the appellant with two other men. The officer watched the group talking for a short period of time and then she decided to approach them because she believed that the appellant was contravening the terms of the injunction to which I have just referred. The appellant appeared to the officer to have been drinking. When she challenged him, he became angry and walked away and as a consequence the officer took hold of his arm. The appellant then pushed the officer and continued to walk away and it was at that point in time, more or less, that the officer decided that she would arrest the appellant for being in breach of the terms of the injunction to which I have just referred. The alleged assault took place almost immediately after the arrest.
It is common ground that the injunction granted by the judge at the County Court was granted pursuant to section 153(A)(3) and (4) of the Housing Act 1996. The power of arrest which was attached to the injunction was made pursuant to section 155 of the same act. The judge fell into error in issuing an injunction coupled with a power of arrest pursuant to those sections. That is because by 23 February 2016 those sections had been repealed and replaced by similar if not identical provisions contained in sections 1 and 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. In summary, at the time the injunction was granted there was a statutory provision which permitted the issue of the injunction, coupled with a power of arrest, but no doubt mistakenly the judge was referred to the section which had been repealed and the order made pursuant to that repealed section.
The point taken on behalf of the appellant, reduced to its essentials, can be described thus. The injunction granted by the judge at the County Court was a nullity. That was because it was granted pursuant to a statutory provision which had ceased to have effect. The power of arrest was a nullity for the same reason. Accordingly, when the officer arrested the appellant, as she undoubtedly did, she had no legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Pegram v Director of Public Prosecutions
...of his duty” “has never been the subject of precise judicial scrutiny”. The source of that observation is said to be Ahmed v. CPS [2017] EWHC 1272 (Admin). 18 What Sir Wyn Williams (sitting as a judge of the High Court) actually said there was that somewhat to his surprise, the phrase “has......
-
Whither Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996?
...Crime Act 1871,s. 12, which made it an offence to assault any constable ‘when in the execution of his duty’.20. Thus in Ahmed v CPS [2017] EWHC 1272 (Admin), Sir Wyn Williams expressed ‘surprise’ that ‘in the execution of his duty’has ‘not been the subject of much judicial scrutiny as to it......