Atmosphere and Context: Use of Force in the Execution of Duty and Retaliatory Force: Pegram v DPP [2019] EWHC 2673 (Admin)
| Published date | 01 February 2020 |
| Author | Mark Thomas |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018320908130 |
| Date | 01 February 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
The Journal of Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 84(1) 94–98
Atmosphere and Context:
ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Use of Force in the Execution
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018320908130
of Duty and Retaliatory Force
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
Pegram v DPP [2019] EWHC 2673 (Admin)
Keywords
Self-defence, amount of force, execution of duty, acceptable standards of everyday conduct
Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996 provides that:
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 [ . . . ].
Pegram was an appeal concerning the extent to which a police officer is considered as acting in
the course of his or her duties when using force on another, and whether self-defence may justify
the conduct of a defendant who assaults a police officer in the execution of that duty. The appeal
also concerned an alleged misdirection as to the appellant’s character; that, however, is outside the
scope of this comment.
John Pegram (P) took part in a demonstration in Bristol, protesting another demonstration. The police
wished to keep the two demonstrations separate and away from the public. It was accepted that P had
strayed away from the pack and had diverted away from the agreed route. The victim, PC Millett,
grabbed P by the arm in order to get his attention and warn him that he must rejoin the agreed route or he
may be liable for a public order offence. During the confrontation (half-way through the warning
according to the officer), P swung his arm around and struck the officer in the face. P contended that
such contact was accidental.
P was convicted of an offence contrary to s 89(1) of the 1989 Act noted above in the magistrates’
court. P unsuccessfully appealed to the Crown Court which reheard the case in full. The Crown Court
preferred the evidence of PC Millett finding that he was acting in the course of his duties in taking hold
of P. Further, the Court found that ‘[n]o prima facie case of self-defence was raised’, and instead found
the defendant liable for the offence based on the recklessness of his conduct. Interestingly, P did not run
self-defence in either his summary trial or first appeal to the Crown Court; this being one of the issues
raised on appeal to the Divisional Court. P requested the learned judge state a case for the opinion of the
Divisional Court. This request was initially rejected, however, following a successful judicial review
application (R (on the application of Pegram) v Bristol Crown Court [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)), the
case was stated to the Divisional Court.
Pegram, therefore, concerns the appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court. The Divisional
Court was tasked with considering three points of law, as follows (at [2]):
(1) Whether, on the facts found in the Crown Court, PC Millett was acting in the execution of his duty when
taking hold of the defendant;
Case Note
95
(2) whether, upon the evidence before the Crown Court, a prima facie case of self-defence was raised and, if
so, whether the Crown Court erred in law (a) by not considering self-defence or (b) by dismissing the
appeal; and
(3) whether the approach adopted in the Crown Court at page 80E-F in the transcript of the appeal proceed-
ings...
To continue reading
Request your trial