Divisional Court Cases
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836102500204 |
| Date | 01 April 1961 |
| Published date | 01 April 1961 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
POLICE
POWERS OF ARREST FOR OBSTRUCTION OF
THE
HIGHWAY
Gelberg
v. Miller
ALTHOUGH
the above case (1961 I
All
E.R. 291) raised
but
fidid
not determine
the
question of the extent of a police con-
stable's common law power of arrest, the actual decision is of
very considerable importance to police officers called
upon
to
deal with ever-recurrent problems of obstruction of
the
high-
way by parked vehicles.
The
facts giving rise to the present case were
that
on
the
9th
December 1959 the appellant left his motor-car in Jermyn
Street, London,
S.W.I,
while he lunched in a restaurant there.
The
street is one in which waiting is restricted during certain
hours which included the period during which the appellant
was taking his luncheon.
The
above restrictions are contained
in the London (Waiting and Loading) (Restrictions) Regula-
tions 1958 hereafter for convenience referred to as
'the
Regula-
tions'. A police sergeant (the respondent) who was in a
police patrol car with two constables observed the appellant's
motor-car. As
the
two constables got out of the police car and
approached
the
appellant's car he came out of the restaurant.
They
asked him to move the car.
The
appellant refused to do
so because he said
that
he had not yet finished his lunch
but
would only be another 3minutes while he drank his coffee and
paid his bill.
The
police officers
then
repeated their request
and told the appellant that if he did
not
move the car theywould
take it away.
The
appellant
then
unlocked his car opened
the
bonnet and removed the rotor arm, thereby immobilising the
car.
He
then
returned to
the
restaurant repeating
that
he
would only be 3 minutes while he drank his coffee and paid his
bill.
In
about 3minutes' time
the
appellant returned.
The
respondent
then
asked him for his name and address, and asked
to see his driving licence and insurance certificate.
The
appel-
lant asked the respondent to wait
but
took no step to comply
with the request which was repeated to him after ashort
10
4
To continue reading
Request your trial