Community Support Officers: Execution of Their Duty and the Scope of Lawful Authority
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2011.75.3.699 |
| Published date | 01 June 2011 |
| Author | Christopher J. Newman |
| Date | 01 June 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Community Support Officers: Execution of their Duty and
the Scope of Lawful Authority
D vDirector of Public Prosecutions [2010] EWHC 3400 (Admin)
Keywords Community Support Officers; Assault; Powers to detain;
Lawful authority
In March 2009, a community support officer (CSO) was on patrol in
uniform with another CSO when she attended a block of flats in
Chadwell Heath to deal with a number of youths who were causing a
disturbance. The appellant, who was one of the youths, walked down a
flight of stairs towards the CSO. The CSO asked the appellant to remain
where he was. The appellant refused and continued to walk towards the
CSO. The CSO again asked the appellant to stop and held her hand out
indicating him to stop. The appellant, however, ignored the request to
stop and pushed past the CSO, pushing her arm back and causing her to
fall backwards and injure herself. The appellant was subsequently
charged with assaulting a community support officer in the execution of
her duties contrary to s. 46(1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 which
states, inter alia, that any person who assaults a designated person in the
execution of his duty shall be guilty of an offence on summary convic-
tion to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine.
According to s. 38(2)(a) of the 2002 Act, a community support officer is
a designated person.
At the trial before magistrates at Barking Youth Court, the CSO stated
that she had intended to detain the appellant so that a police officer
could attend the scene and search the appellant for drugs, as there had
been previous complaints by residents of youths in the stairwell taking
drugs. The magistrates found as a matter of fact that, in requiring the
appellant to stay at the scene, the CSO was seeking the attendance of a
police officer to conduct a search of the appellant. The appellant con-
tended that there was no power in law for a CSO to detain him pending
the arrival of a police officer to search for drugs. Therefore, the appellant
contended that the CSO had intended to detain him unlawfully and was
not acting in the execution of her duty.
The magistrates decided that the CSO had not detained the appellant
and the appellant was convicted of an offence under s. 46(1) of the 2002
Act. The appeal by way of case stated raised three questions: (1) whether
the magistrates were correct to conclude that by verbally requiring the
appellant to remain and putting her hand out indicating him to stop,
the CSO had not detained the appellant; (2) whether the CSO had the
power to detain the appellant in order for a police officer to conduct a
search for drugs; and (3) whether the magistrates had correctly con-
cluded that the appellant had assaulted the CSO in the execution of her
duty.
164 The Journal of Criminal Law (2011) 75 JCL 164–167
doi:10.1350/jcla.2011.75.3.699
To continue reading
Request your trial