Divisional Courts
| Published date | 01 April 1977 |
| Date | 01 April 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201837704100204 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Courts
Comments
on
Cases
WILFUL
OBSTRUCTION?
Willmott
v.
Atack
The
question
for
the
Court
in this case
(19763
W.L.R. 753) was
whether
someone
who
had
in fact
obstructed
the
police
in
the
execution
of
their
duty
was
guilty
of
wilfully
obstructing
them
contrary
to s.51 (3)
of
the
Police
Act
1964,
although
his
intention
was to help
rather
than
hinder
the
police.
The
Defendant,
Barry
Willmott, was
the
owner
of
the
Biggin
Hill
Manor
Country
Club, Biggin Hill. On
the
evening
of
25th
April
1975
a
Ford
Capri, driven
by
one
Howe
was followed
into
the
grounds
of
the
Club by a
police
car
containing
four
police officials,
one
of
whom,
Zieminski, alleged
that
Howe
had
assaulted
him
and
taken
his
warrant
card
and
in
addition
he, Zieminski,
had
reason
to believe
that
Howe
had
alcohol
in his
body.
The
prosecutor,
Police
Constable
Atack,
was
the
driver
of
the
police car. He
parked
the
car
and
went
over to
where
the
three
other
police
constables
and
Howe were
standing
and
thereupon,
as a
result
of
what
Zieminski
said,
attempted
to
arrest
Howe.
Howe
began to struggle,
whereupon
the
Defendant
approached,
and
having
spoken
to
the
police officers
attempted
to
intervene
and
pushed
P.C.
Atack
in
the
throat,
while
he was
holding
Howe.
Howe
then
quietened
down,
and
was
taken
to
the
police
car,
but
refused
to get in
when
asked to do so by
P.C.
Atack.
The
Defendant
pushed
between
Howe
and
the
officer,
and
told
Howe
not
to be so
stupid
and
to get
into
the
car. He again
pushed
P.C.
Atack
while
trying
to get
Howe
into
the
car.
The
Defendant
was
subsequently
arrested
and
charged
with,
inter
alia,
the
offence
in
question.
The
Defendant
argued
that
his
intention
was to assist
the
police officers,
and
that
he
had
at no
time
deliberately
pushed
the
officer;
furthermore
that
he
genuinely
believed he
could
calm
Howe
down.
The
prosecution
contended
that
even if
what
the
Defendant
said was
true,
he
had
deliberately
interfered,
and
had
in fact
obstructed
the
officers, accordingly he was guilty
of
wilful
obstruction.
The
Defendant
having
been
convicted,
appealed
in
due
course
by
way
of
case
stated
to
the
Divisional
Court.
The
question
for
the
Court
was
whether
the
prosecution
had
88
To continue reading
Request your trial