Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | John Wood |
| Published date | 01 July 1985 |
| Date | 01 July 1985 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X8505800309 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
SIR
JOHN
WOOD, C.B.E., LL.M.,
The University
01'
Sheffield.
Legal Correspondent
(~I'
the Police Journal.
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
STOP!
Lod
.....
ick v, Sanders [1985] I W.L.R. 382 Divisional
Court
Sanders
was the driver of an articulated lorry.
Two
police officers
noticed
that
it appeared to lack a vehicle excise licence, a rear number
plate
and
brake
lights.
They
stopped the vehicle by flashing the lights
of the police van in which they were following the lorry. They asked
Sanders a few questions. His reply to the ownership of the lorry was
vague.
The
officers also asked
about
the excise licence. At this stage
Sanders
gave his name
and
address, said he was in a hurry and started
to move off. Not being satisfied, the officer tried to immobilise the
vehicle by grabbing the ignition key. Sanders resisted this
and
by
pressing the officer's
arm
against the steering wheel made him let go
of the keys.
For
this action he was arrested. The officers were minded
at the time to charge him with the various offences relating to the
vehicle, or if the inquiries
had
shown grounds, of theft or taking
without consent.
The
whole episode was said to have lasted not more
than
30 seconds.
Sanders
was charged before the magistrates of assaulting a police
officer in the course of his duty. The defence argued
that
the police
officers
had
exceeded their
duty
by their action in trying to detain the
lorry.
The
magistrates found
that
under
s. 159 of the
Road
Traffic
Act
197'2,
the driver could be required to
stop
and
remain for a
reasonable period. No power was given to forcibly ensure this.
Failure to give full particulars was
not
an arrestable offence, so the
police had in
attempting
to restrict the driver's freedom, acted
outside their
duty
and
the protection of s. 51
(I)
of the Police Act
1964.
The
prosecutor appealed.
Watkins LJ, in the Divisional
Court,
having set
out
the facts
and
congratulated counsel for their assistance, went on to say
that
the
rights of a constable who has lawfully stopped a vehicle to detain
that
vehicle were far from clear. There is a general duty on police officers
to detect crime
and
to bring offenders to the courts. This was clearly
stated
in Rice v.
Connolly(l966)
130J. P. 322; [1966] 2 Q.B. 441. An
earlier case, R. v. Waterfield (1964) 128
J.P.
48; [1964] I Q.B. 164
had, however, underlined the point
that
this obligation was to some
extent
limited by the need to protect the person
and
property of a
private individual.
It was accepted
that
s. 159 of the
a
duty
on a driver to
stop
when required to do so by a constable in
uniform,
can
be construed as vesting
that
power in the police. But
that
does
not
cover the point
about
detention. Individuals
cannot
252
Julv
/985
To continue reading
Request your trial