Bowditch v Balchin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 1850 |
| Date | 31 May 1850 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 165
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J Ex 337
boudituh v balchin May 31, 1850 -A police constable of the city of London, has no power, undei the 2 & 3 Viet c wiv, to take a peison into custody without warrant, merely on suspicion that he has committed a misdemeanor / _ / n. 8 - [S C 19 L J Ex- 3.57] Trespass foi assaulting the plaintiff, and conveying him to a police-station, and there detaining him without reasonable or probable cause J?lea, as to assaulting the plaintiff, and conveying hrm to the sard polrce-statrou, thalj, before the time when, &c , the defendant was a constable of the police of the tcity of London, appointed under a certain Act of Parlrament m.ide and passed &c j(3 & 3 Viet c xcrv ), and that, at the time when &c , he was acting as such constable withm the said city, and that just l efore the committing of the supposed trespasses, and whilst he was acting as such constable within the said city, to wit, &c , one John Millei, in the presence aud hearing of the plaintrtt, stated and represented to the [379] defendant then acting as such constable of the police foiceas afotesaicl, that the plaintiff had committed a certarn offence, to wit, wilful and corrupt perjury, by wrlfully and corruptly making a false affidavit in a judicial proceeding before the Hon Sir William \Vightruan, Knight, one of the Justices of the Court of our Lady the Queen, befoie the Queen herself, arrd that the said John Miller then and theie charged the plaintiff with the commission of the said offence, and then and there required the defendant Thomas Balchin to take the plaintiff into custody upon the said charge , wherefore, and because the plaintiff, on being asked by the defendant on the sard occasron if his the plaintiff's name was Bowditch, replied that it w$,s not, and that he should not tell what his name was, he the defendant then had goocj cause to suspect, and did then suspect, the plaintiff of ha\ ing committed the said offence, and, as such constable of the police, did then, within the said city, take the 166 PENKIVTL V CONNRTJ. 1 EX 380 plaintiff into custody, and because there was no justice of the peace foi the said city then sitting, before whom the plaintiff could be taken upon the said charge, the defendant caused the plaintiff to go in and along divers public sheets and highways in the said city to a certain police-station in the said city, such station being the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wills (A.p.) v Bowley (on Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)
...the Act, but those whom they reasonably suppose to be so." 9 The powerful court refused to do so. 10 The same court two years later in Bowditch v. Balchin held that a police constable in the City of London had no power under a local Act of 1839 for regulating the police in the City of Londo......
- Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v PP
- Koh Yoke Koon v Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia and Another
- Haji Omar Din bin Mawaidin v Minister for Home Affairs, Malaysia and Another
-
Quarter Sessions
...eighth.Thecases R. v. Clarke (1950 IK.B.158), Trebeck v.Crondare (1918 IK.B.158), R. v. Fairbairn (1949 2K.B.690)andBowditch v. Balchin (1850 5 Ex. 378, this last aLondon Police Act case on "loose, idle, disorderly personswhere there is ajustcause to suspect") were also relevant.Intheactual......