Difficulties with Arrest
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9406700103 |
| Published date | 01 January 1994 |
| Author | Rob R. Jerrard |
| Date | 01 January 1994 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
ROB R.
JERRARD
LL
B,
LL
M(London)
DIFFICULTIES WITH ARREST
The Police Officer
It is of immense importance how an officer exercises his discretion under
s.24(6) of PACE since the outcome may be an unlawful arrest resulting in
an action for false imprisonment in a county court.
Section 24(6):
"Where aconstable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an
arrestable offencehas been committed,he may arrest without awarrant
anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of
the offence."
Subsection (6) deals with a constable's power ofarrest. It could be termed
"the double negative" because there are double reasonable grounds for
suspecting, both as to the commission of the offence and the person who
has committed it. Reasonable grounds suggest an objective test; this is
lowerthan the standardsufficient to prove aprimajaciecase. In the course
of their duties, constables act for variousreasons, eg, informationreceived,
radio messages, telephone calls, or perhaps the word
of
an informer. It is
not surprising that the courtshave allowed reasonablescope, whilst setting
limits.
Civil actionsagainstthe police have increased inrecent years. However,
Court of Appeal decisions have placed the matter in perspective and
shown that the police do not need to take positive steps to make further
inquiries once a reasonable suspicion has crystallized in their minds.
In Chapman v. Director
of
Public Prosecutions [1988] 89 Cr. App. R.
190, it was held that a constable who suspects a person
of
committing an
offence to which only alimited powerof arrest applies cannotlaterdefend
himselfon the footing that the facts might have fallen into a more serious
offencecategory.The Courtfound that the officerbelieveda fellow officer
had suffered an assault. The Court concluded this was a common assault
(no known injuries), which is not an arrestable offence. The officer had
purportedly exercised his powers under s.26(6) PACE Act and entered a
flat to do so, in the course of which he was assaulted in the execution
of
his duty. The Court said they were not holding that the officer did not
believe he had reasonable suspicion, they were saying the conviction
could not stand because there was no finding that he did.
In Castorina
v,
ChiejConstable
of
Surrey [1988] 138
N.LJ.
180, it was
held that failure to follow an obvious course of inquiry or verification in
exceptional circumstances may, however, be grounds for attacking the
exercise of the power. Woolf,
LJ.
suggested three questions:
(1) Did the arresting officersuspect that the person arrested was guilty
of the offence? This is subjective to the officer's mind.
January 1994 The Police Journal 15
To continue reading
Request your trial