Brazil v Chief Constable of Surrey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1983 |
| Date | 1983 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Police - Search, right of - Arrested persons - Arrest for conduct likely to cause breach of peace - Suspicion that arrested woman in possession of drugs - Suspicion not communicated to arrested woman - Search of arrested woman by women police officers - Whether acting in execution of duty -
As a result of the defendant's conduct at a public house she was arrested by police officers for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace and taken to a police station. In the chargeroom she complied with a request to empty her handbag and pockets but when a policewoman informed her that everyone brought to the police station had to be searched for their own safety, the defendant became abusive and struck the policewoman across the face with her handbag. The officer in charge of the station was called to the chargeroom and formed the suspicion based on reasonable grounds that the defendant was in possession of prohibited drugs but he did not refer to that fact when he informed the defendant that she had to be searched. The defendant was forcibly searched, in the course of which she assaulted another policewoman. She was charged with two offences of assaulting a police constable in the execution of her duty, contrary to section 51 (1) of the Police Act 1964.
On the defendant's appeal against conviction on both charges:—
Held, allowing the appeal, (1) that there was no general rule that everyon brought into a police station had to be searched for their own safety and, accordingly, the police were not entitled to carry out a personal search without regard to the circumstances of the particular case; that since the policewoman had not considered whether the defendant was in possession of an article with which she might injure herself, she had not addressed her mind to the circumstances of the case, and had not been acting in the execution of her duty when she proposed to search the defendant and that, accordingly, the conviction for the first assault should be quashed (post, p. 1160B–D, F).
(2) That a personal search by police officers imposed a restraint on a person's freedom to which he should not be required to submit unless he knew in substance the reason for it; that a police officer who had decided to carry out a search should inform the person concerned of the reason for it unless the circumstances rendered the giving of reasons unnecessary or impracticable, and that, accordingly, since the officer in charge failed to communicate to the defendant the reason for the search, the officers were not acting in the execution of their duty when searching the defendant, and the conviction for the second assault should be quashed (post, pp. 162E–F, G–1163C, E–F, 1164B).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Robert Goff L.J.:
Christie v. Leachinsky [
Lindley v. Rutter [
The following additional case was cited in argument:
Reg. v. Green [
CASE STATED by Surrey justices sitting at Guildford.
The defendant, Karen Frances Brazil, was charged inter alia that on Friday January 1, 1982, at Guildford she did assault Carole Young, a constable of the Surrey Constabulary, in the execution of her duty contrary to section 51 (1) of the Police Act 1964 and, further, on Friday, January 1, 1982, at Guildford she did assault Rosemary Shields, a constable of the Surrey Constabulary, in the execution of her duty contrary to section 51 (1) of the Police Act 1964.
The justices heard the case on March 12, 1982, and convicted the defendant of both the charges of assault, sentence being passed on April 2, 1982.
The justices found the following facts. Police officers were called to a public house in Guildford at the instance of the licensee in order to eject the defendant from the premises. The defendant became abusive and was requested to leave on several occasions by the police officers. The defendant refused to leave and was arrested for conducting herself in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace. The defendant was conveyed peaceably to Guildford police station and placed in the chargeroom. The defendant was interviewed in the chargeroom and initially gave a false name and address. The defendant was requested to empty her handbag and pockets which request was complied with. W.P.C. Young entered the chargeroom and informed the defendant that everyone brought into the police station had to be searched for their own safety. W.P.C. Young not suspect the defendant to be in possession of prohibited drugs. The defendant replied abusively to the statement concerning the search, took hold of her own handbag and struck the constable across the face. That action was the assault referred to in the first charge. At that stage, no attempt had been made to search the defendant nor did they find any other ground for apprehension on the part of the defendant of imminent battery. W.P.C. Young did not inform the defendant that she would need to strip to be searched. Following that assault the defendant was restrained and W.P.C. Shields attended in the chargeroom and explained to the defendant that it was necessary for her to be searched. W.P.C. Shields gave no reason why the search was necessary nor did she suspect the defendant to be in possession of prohibited drugs. The defendant refused to co-operate with the search. Accordingly, the officer in charge of the police station, acting Inspector Martin, attended the chargeroom. He suspected the defendant of being in possession of prohibited drugs which suspicion the justices found to be based on reasonable grounds, namely (i) the physical appearance of the defendant in that her eyes were glazed although there was no indication of drunkenness: (ii) the defendant's bizarre behaviour in the police station; (iii) local knowledge of the reputation with regard to drugs of the premises at which the defendant had been arrested. Acting Inspector Martin informed the defendant that she had to be searched. No reference was made to the suspicion that had been formed. The defendant declined to be searched. Acting Inspector Martin gave orders for the defendant to be searched. The defendant was forcibly searched. She was held down by the officers her boots removed, her jeans taken down to her thighs and her jumper raised, to allow a visual check on her brassiere. At this point the assault occurred which is the subject of the second charge.
It was contended by the defendant that the police officers had the right neither to force nor request the defendant to submit to a search and, in doing so, the officers were acting outside the scope of their duty. Any reasonable cause to suspect possession of drugs had to be based on ground personal to the person being searched and not by association with premises or districts.
It was contended by the prosecutor that as regarded the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG
...J [2009] EWHC 142 (Admin) affirmed. The following cases are referred to in the judgments: Bessell v Wilson (1853) 17 JP 52 Brazil v Chief Constable of Surrey [1983] 1 WLR 1155; [1983] 3 All ER 537, DC C’s Application for Judicial Review, In re [2007] NIQB 101; [2008] NI 203, DC (NI); sub no......
-
R (Al-Hasan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Carroll) v Same
...his submission that reasons should have been given, Mr Fitzgerald relied on the judgment of the Divisional Court in Brazil v The Chief Constable of Surrey [1983] 3 All ER 537. That case involved a search of a female who had been arrested for acting in a manner likely to cause a breach of th......
-
DPP v McFadden
...which is being invoked." 27 As similar view has been taken by the English Court of Appeal: see Brazil v Chief Constable of Surrey (1983) 3 All ER 537. 28 It is clear from the evidence in this case that the applicant was at no stage told by Garda McHugh why he was being searched or why the c......
-
Cloutier v. Langlois and Bédard, (1990) 105 N.R. 241 (SCC)
...Crim. L.R. 532, refd to. [para. 26]. Lindley v. Rutter, [1981] Q.B. 128, refd to. [para. 26]. Brazil v. Chief Constable of Surrey, [1983] 3 All E.R. 537 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. United States v. Robinson (1973), 414 U.S. 218, refd to. [para. 30]. Gustafson v. Florida (1973), 414 U.S. 260, re......