Recent Judicial Decisions
| Published date | 01 March 1961 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6103400205 |
| Date | 01 March 1961 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent
Judicial
Decisions
ARREST
WITHOUT
WARRANT:
"THE
REASON
WHY"
Gelberg
v. Miller
IT HAS ALWAYS been the law
that
aperson on his arrest is entitled
to know what may loosely be
called"
the reason
why".
The Lord
Chief Justice stated this principle in
Gelberg
v. Miller, [1961] 1 All
E.R. 921 a case in which the defendant was lawfully arrested without
warrant although the actual charge brought against him did not
give a statutory power of arrest without warrant, nor, probably, a
common law power either. The point was that the facts of the case
would have supported another charge in addition, and that other
charge did carry the necessary power.
The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge
of
parking in a restricted
area, contrary to the London Waiting and Loading Restrictions
Regulations, 1958. He was also convicted of wilfully obstructing
a police sergeant in the execution of his duty, contrary to s. 2 of the
Prevention of Crimes Act, 1885. The defendant's information
against the sergeant for assault was dismissed. The Divisional Court
of fivejudges
(the"
full court
")
upheld these decisions of the magis-
trate. The facts were these. The defendant's car was parked outside
arestaurant in Jermyn Street, London, at about 2p.m. The sergeant
and two police constables saw the car, and the police constables were
inspecting it when the defendant emerged from the restaurant and
was requested by them to remove the car. He refused, saying that
he would be only three minutes as he had to finish his lunch and pay
his bill. He was requested again to remove the car, and on again
refusing was told that the police officers would do so. The defendant
then removed the rotor
arm
from the distributor mechanism and
told the police officers that he would not be three minutes. He then
returned to the restaurant and came back after three minutes and
began to replace the rotor arm.
At this stage the sergeant asked him to produce his driving licence
and insurance certificate,
and
for his name and address. The defen-
dant refused, and the sergeant arrested him, taking hold of his left
wrist and arm. Before doing so, the sergeant told the defendant
96 March-April 1961
To continue reading
Request your trial