Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8305600310 |
| Published date | 01 July 1983 |
| Date | 01 July 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
SIR JOHN WOOD, C.B.E., LL.M.,
The University
of
Sheffield,
Legal Correspondent
of
the Police Journal
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
THE WRONG
MAN,
OFFICER!
Hills v. Ellis [1983] 2 W.L.R. 234 Divisional Court
Hills, the appellant, had been to watch Spurs play football. On his
way from the match he saw two men fighting. He formed the
impression
that
one of them was the aggressor. Aconstable arrived
and arrested the man whom Hills had thought to be the innocent
victim. The road was obviously both busy and very noisy. Hills tried
to draw the police constable's attention by shoutingat him. He failed
to draw his attention so he grabbed him by the arm so
that
he could
get a hearing for hisview of the matter. Anotherpolice officer, seeing
Hills's behaviour, warned him to stop. Hills did not do as asked, so
he was arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer in the
execution of his duty.
The defence based its case on the fact that Hills had a perfectly
good motive, had no hostility towards the police
and
merely wished
to avert an injustice. He was merely trying to put his evidence before
the police to persuade them to change their minds. Despite this the
magistrates convicted the accused and gave him an absolute
discharge. They found
that
Hill's intervention had been in an
agitated way, and
that
bearing in mind the difficulties of policing a
crowd his action interfered with them. He should have gone to the
station to make his point and his genuine motive did not negative the
interference. By their choice of an absolute discharge, however, they
showed some sympathy with the accused.
It
was first pointed out
that
no one had suggested
that
the arrest of
the
man
in the fight was other than lawful: the arresting officer had
reasonable grounds for his action. The basic elements of the offence
were set out by Lord Parker,
CJ,
in Rice v. Connolly [1966] 130
J.P.
322; [1966] 2 Q.B. 414. There has to be an obstruction, the constable
has to be acting in the execution of his duty and the obstruction has
to be wilful. It is the last of these three points which was debatable.
Lord Parker,
CJ,
defined "wilful" as "intentional
...
done without
lawful excuse".
It
was argued that Hills had a lawful excuse - his
moral duty to tell the officer
that
he was arresting the wrong man.
The logic of this was firmly rejected. Griffiths, LJ, said
"It
would be quite intolerable if citizens, who may genuinely
believe the wrong man was arrested,
\l'Prf~
entitled to lay hands on
the police
and
obstruct them in
that
arrest because they thought
that
some other person should be arrested".
260 July 1983
To continue reading
Request your trial