House of Lords

DOI10.1177/002201838204600202
Published date01 May 1982
Date01 May 1982
Subject MatterHouse of Lords
House
of
Lords
Comments
on
Cases
POLICE POWERS TO RESTRAIN BREACH OF THE PEACE
Albert v. Lavin
A man pushed past several people in a bus queue, in an attempt to
'jump'the
queue. The man at the head
of
the queue was a police officer,
off
duty and in plain clothes, who restrained him from carrying
out
his
intention and pulled him away from the bus. He told him that he was a
police officer and
that
if he did
not
stop struggling he would arrest him.
The magistrates later held
that,
in his excited state, the man did not
believe that it was a police officer who was addressing him. In the
ensuing struggle, the police officer received about half a dozen blows in
the stomach and he arrested the man and charged him with assaulting
a police officer in the execution
of
his
duty
contrary to section 51 of
the Police Act 1964. At the trial, the police officer claimed that he had
acted as he had done because he feared that abreach of the peace
would follow from the man's attempt to 'jump' the queue. The Justices
held that in the circumstances the police officer had the right to detain
the person without an arrest and to use a reasonable amount of force to
prevent a breach
of
the peace. The man's reaction to the police officer's
preventing him from boarding the bus amounted to a continuing breach
of
the peace. The justices also found that the man's belief that his
opponent was
not
a police officer was unreasonable,
but
added
that,
if
he had been unlawfully detained, the blows which were the basis
of
the
charge
of
assault would have veen no more than reasonable force to
effect his release from that unlawful detention. A case was stated for
the opinion
of
the High Court on two questions: (1) whether a police
constable who reasonably believes that abreach
of
the peace is about to
take place is entitled to detain a person without arrest to prevent that
breach
of
the peace, and (2) whether a person who is detained in these
circumstances,
but
who does not believe the police constable to be a
police constable in the execution
of
his duty, is guilty
of
an offence, if
he uses no more force than is reasonably necessary to protect himself
from what he honestly,
but
unreasonably, belives to be an unjustified
assault and false imprisonment.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal (see [1981] 2 W.L.R.
1070) on the ground that the only exception to the principle that to
detain a man without arresting him is an unlawful act is where the
detention is by a constable acting in the execution
of
his duty. On that
81

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT