Assaulting a Police Officer: The Redundant Perils of Establishing ‘In the Execution of His Duty’?: Dixon v Crown Prosecution Service [2018] EWHC 3154 (Admin)
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018319831089 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Assaulting a Police Officer: The
Redundant Perils of Establishing
‘In the Execution of His Duty’?
Dixon v Crown Prosecution Service [2018] EWHC 3154 (Admin)
The appellant was observed cycling in the early hours of the morning by three police constables in an
unmarked vehicle. He fitted a description of a person who might be carrying drugs or weapons which had
been imparted to the constables at an earlier intelligence briefing. One of the officers got out of the
vehicle and asked the appellant to stop. On refusing to do so, the constable took hold of the appellant’s
arm neither for the purpose of arrest nor to conduct a stop and search. A fight ensued during which the
second and third constables became involved. The third constable sought to restrain the appellant’s arm
on the basis that he believed him to be reaching for a weapon from his waistband. He understood his
colleagues to be trying to detain the appellant. The appellant bit the third constable on the arm. In respect
of his behaviour, he was charged with three offences of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his
duty contrary to s. 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. Before the Willesden Magistrates he was acquitted of the
offences charged in relation to the first and second constables but found guilty of the offence involving
the biting of the third constable. An appeal to the Crown Court against that conviction was dismissed.
During the hearing, it was not submitted on the appellant’s behalf that the third constable had been acting
outside the execution of his duty at the time of the assault.
The question for the Divisional Court to consider was whether, given that the first constable had
unlawfully detained the appellant, the Crown Court had nevertheless been entitled to find that the third
constable had been acting in the execution of his duty when he was bitten.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that whilst the first constable had acted unlawfully in seeking to detain
the appellant, and whilst the second constable had likewise been acting unlawfully when assisting him,
the third constable was acting in a way that appeared to him necessary to prevent the commission of a
crime of violence against one or both of his colleagues. Accordingly, he had been acting within the
execution of his duty when he was bitten.
Commentary
Appeals against convictions for s. 89(1) offences (and its statutory predecesso rs) are by no means
uncommon. Rarely, if ever, do they relate to the first element of the offence; an assault on a police
constable. Instead, their focus is on the second element which needs to be established by the prosecution;
that at the material time, the constable was acting in the execution of their duty. The present appeal
therefore repeats the familiar pattern in this regard.
A preliminary matter
Prior to considering the substance of the Divisional Court’s judgment, a subsidiary issue merits attention.
It concerns one of the two preliminary matters raised before the court. It focused on whether the appeal
ought to be entertained given that the appellant was seeking to raise a point—that the third constable had
not been acting in the execution of his duty—which had not been advanced before the Crown Court. In
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(1) 27–29
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319831089
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial