Ledwith v Roberts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1936 |
| Date | 1936 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
False imprisonment - Arrest on suspicion without warrant - Suspected person or reputed thief loitering about in any highway or place adjacent thereto with intent to commit a felony - Idle and disorderly persons - Power of constable to arrest without warrant limited to persons already belonging to class of suspected persons or reputed thieves -
The Vagrancy Act, 1824, by s. 4, as amended by s. 15 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, and s. 7 of the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, provided that “…. Every suspected person or reputed thief frequenting …. any street or any highway or any place adjacent to a street or highway, with intent to commit felony, and every suspected person or reputed thief loitering about or in any of the said places and with the said intent …. shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond.”
Sect. 6 provided “that it shall be lawful for any person whatsoever to apprehend any person who shall be found offending against this Act ……”
Liverpool Corporation Act, 1921, s. 513, provided: “It shall be lawful for any police constable and all such persons as he shall call to his assistance to arrest and detain without warrant ….
“(2.) Any loose idle or disorderly person whom he shall find disturbing the public peace or whom he shall have good cause to suspect of having committed or being about to commit any felony misdemeanour or breach of the peace or to instigate or abet any such breach;
“(3.) Any person whom he shall find between sunset and the hour of eight in the morning lying or loitering in any street yard or other place and not giving a satisfactory account of himself.”
Two young men, one of whom on an evening in February, 1935, was inside a telephone kiosk in Liverpool for the purpose as he alleged of receiving a call, while the other was waiting outside, were arrested by two police constables and detained. They brought an action for false imprisonment against the two police constables. The police officers by their defence said that they had kept the plaintiffs under observation for a period of twenty-five minutes and that they upon the grounds set out in the particulars had reasonable and probable cause for suspecting that the plaintiffs had been attempting or were about to commit a felony — namely, to steal from the coin box at the kiosk — and that they accordingly arrested them. It was not alleged in the defence that the plaintiffs were suspected persons or that they were idle or disorderly persons. The judge held that the facts alleged in the defence, even if proved, would afford no defence in law to the action, and he accordingly entered judgment for the plaintiffs.
On an appeal by the defendants:—
Held, that the powers of a constable to arrest without warrant under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, were confined to arresting persons frequenting or loitering who came within the description “suspected persons” or “reputed thieves,” and that such persons could only be apprehended without warrant if they already were at the time of the arrest, by reason of their previous conduct, suspected persons or reputed thieves, and as the defendants had not alleged in their defence that either of the plaintiffs was a “suspected” person at the time of his arrest they could not rely upon that Act; and that the Legislature did not intend to leave it to a constable to arrest without warrant any citizen whom he found loitering in a street merely because the constable on what he deemed to be reasonable grounds suspected that such person was loitering for the purpose of committing a crime; that in order to justify apprehension and detention under s. 513 of the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1921, it must be established that the person apprehended belonged to the class of loose, idle or disorderly persons; the power to apprehend did not arise where all that could be proved was that the constable honestly believed on reasonable grounds that the person apprehended was a loose, idle or disorderly person; that the defendants could not rely upon that section, as they had not alleged in their pleadings that either of the plaintiffs was a loose, idle or disorderly person.
APPEAL from a decision of the Presiding Judge of the Liverpool Court of Passage.
The two plaintiffs, Joseph Ledwith and Christopher Crothers, were young men under twenty-one years of age who sued by their next friends. Both of them were window-cleaners.
The defendants, J. R. Roberts and H. A. Pearce, were both constables in the Liverpool City Police Force.
The plaintiffs by their statement of claim alleged that on February 28, 1935, the defendants maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause arrested and imprisoned them. The plaintiffs gave the following particulars: At about 7.15 in the evening of the said February 28, 1935, the plaintiff Crothers entered a telephone kiosk in King Street, Liverpool, to receive a call and the plaintiff Ledwith stood waiting outside. The defendants came to the said kiosk and wrongfully imprisoned and detained both plaintiffs for about ten minutes while they interrogated the plaintiffs and while a third constable made a telephone call in the said kiosk. The plaintiffs at once explained that the plaintiff Crothers was receiving a call. One of the defendants then took hold of the plaintiff Crothers and both defendants escorted both plaintiffs through the streets to the Heald Street Bridewell. At the said Bridewell the plaintiff Crothers was accused of tampering with the box in the said kiosk, and both plaintiffs were wrongfully imprisoned and detained for about three-quarters of an hour. At the end of that time the plaintiffs were informed that the truth of their explanation in regard to the telephone call had been established but that the charge of tampering with the box still remained. Thereupon both plaintiffs were wrongfully imprisoned and detained for a further two hours and were allowed to leave the said Bridewell at about 10.30 P.M., when they were told that they would probably be summoned. Neither of the plaintiffs had been summoned. The plaintiffs alleged that by reason of the premises they had suffered severe humiliation and discomfort, and they claimed damages from the defendants.
The defendants by their defence denied that the plaintiffs were wrongfully arrested or imprisoned by the defendants, and they said in para. 2 that the plaintiffs were for a period of twenty-five minutes kept under observation by the defendants and that the defendants, having as a result of such observation and upon grounds set out in the particulars to the defence reasonable and probable cause for suspecting that the plaintiffs had been attempting or were about to commit a felony, namely, to steal from the coin box at the said telephone kiosk, the defendants, as was their duty, arrested the plaintiffs and escorted them to Heald Street Bridewell, where they were detained by the officer there in charge until the completion of the inquiries which in the circumstances it became necessary for the police to make.
PARTICULARS.
(1.) The plaintiff Crothers was seen standing in the said telephone kiosk, in which there was no light. He was not telephoning and the plaintiff Ledwith was seen loitering outside apparently keeping watch and screening the plaintiff Crothers in the said kiosk from passers-by.
(2.) The plaintiff Crothers remained inside the said kiosk for a period of about twenty-five minutes, during which time, although he handled the receiver, he did not make use of the telephone.
(3.) From time to time during the said 25 minutes the plaintiff Crothers was seen to bend down and apparently examine the coin container in the said kiosk.
(4.) During the whole of the said twenty-five minutes the plaintiff Ledwith remained outside the said kiosk in the manner hereinbefore indicated.
(5.) At the end of the said twenty-five minutes the defendants approached the said kiosk, whereupon the plaintiff Ledwith kicked the door of the same and shouted and the plaintiff Crothers at the same time picked up the telephone receiver.
(6.) The plaintiff Ledwith in answer to questions by the defendants as to what the man inside had been doing during the previous twenty-five minutes and as to whom he was then talking to said he did not know, and on being asked if he had been keeping a look-out outside the kiosk he did not reply.
(7.) The plaintiff Crothers stated that he had been speaking to his mate on the telephone, but on being asked by the defendants who his mate was and from where his mate had been speaking he said he did not know.
(8.) The telephone operator and supervisor on an inquiry then and there made over the telephone by the defendant Pearce stated that no calls had been received to or from the said kiosk within the previous half-hour.
(9.) The plaintiffs were again asked by the defendants to explain what they had been doing during the previous twenty-five minutes but neither gave any reply.
There was no allegation in the defence that either of the plaintiffs was a suspected person or that he was an idle or disorderly person.
At the hearing before the judge of the Liverpool Court of Passage, the judge was asked to amend the defence by adding a statement that the plaintiffs were idle persons, but he refused.
No evidence was called, but it was stated by counsel for the two defendants that he could not prove any facts beyond those stated in the defence and the particulars thereto, and that he relied upon the facts pleaded as constituting both the plaintiffs as suspected, idle and disorderly persons.
The Presiding Judge intimated that in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wills (A.p.) v Bowley (on Appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)
...circumstances arose in the present case. Public safety was not endangered, nor was danger to life or limb or property threatened. 13 In Ledwith v. Roberts [1937] 1 K.B. 232, Greene L.J. in examining the judgment of Bankes L.J. in Trebeck v. Croudace quotes the above passage as the real basi......
-
Gan Poh Chye v Public Prosecutor
...CJ said: It is very doubtful whether Hartley v Ellnor (1917) 86 LJ KB 938 has much authority after the decision of Ledwith v Roberts [1937] 1 KB 232 in spite of the opinion of the King`s Bench Division in Rawlings v Smith [1938] 1 KB 675 In Ledwith v Roberts [1937] 1 KB 232 one judge, Greer......
-
R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 SCR 761
...Cited By Cory J. Referred to: Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; R. v. Munroe (1983), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 217; Ledwith v. Roberts, [1937] 1 K.B. 232; R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; R. v. Gauvin (1984), 11 C.C.C. (3d) 229; R. v. Andsten and Petrie (1960), 33 C.R. 213; R. v. Loz......
-
R. v. Heywood (R.L.), (1994) 174 N.R. 81 (SCC)
...1; 44 D.L.R.(3d) 351, refd to. [para. 7]. R. v. Munroe (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 217 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 25]. Ledwith v. Roberts, [1937] 1 K.B. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; 152 N.R. 247; 62 O.A.C. 285, refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Gauvin (1984), 2 O......
-
A Critical Evaluation of the Historical and Contemporary Justifications for Criminalising Begging
...and Hall: London, 1887); L. Charlesworth, ‘Why Is it a Crime to BePoor’ (1999) 21 Liverpool Law Review 149, 157.3Ledwith v Roberts [1936] 3 All ER 570 at 593. See also S. Webb and B. Webb,English Local Government, English Poor Law History, Part 1: The Old Poor Law, vol. VII(Frank Cass: Lond......
-
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
...v. Smith (reportedandcommented on in vol.IIat page100)onthepreviousdecisions in Hartley v. Ellnor (117L.T.R.,304) and Ledwithv. Roberts(53T.L.R., 21), concerning what has to be proved COURTSOFSUMMARYJURISDICTION175in"suspectedperson"charges, was considered byMr.T.W.Fryat Bow Street Police C......
-
On the origins of consorting laws.
...A History of English Law vol 2, above n 9, 460. Scott LJ provides a compendious history of the Vagrancy Acts in Ledwith v Roberts [1937] 1 KB 232, (13) Webb and Webb, above n 10, 26. (14) Sir William Holdsworth, A History of English Law (Methuen & Co and Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd ed, 194......
-
Recent Judicial Decisions
...had a cramping influence onunobjectionable police practice.Itis worth noting that Cohen v. Black has re-affirmedthatLedwithv. Roberts (1937, 1K.B.232), rightly understood, did not overruleHartley v. Ellnor (117 L. T. 304), in spite of some judicial remarks in theformer case; they were merel......