Recent Judicial Decisions
| Published date | 01 March 1964 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6403700310 |
| Author | W. H. D. Winder |
| Date | 01 March 1964 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
W.
H.
D.
WINDER,
M.A.,
LL.M.
Legal Correspondent
of
THE
POLICE JOURNAL
POLICE
POWERS TO
STOP
A CAR
R. v. Waterfield
Aperson driving a
motor
vehicle on a road shall stop on being
so required by a police constable in uniform. This well-known
provision in the
Road
Traffic Act had to be considered in relation to
the offence
of
assaulting a peace officer " in due execution
of
his
duty"
(Offences against the Person Act, 1861,s. 38) and in relation to
the common law duties
of
a peace officer ([1963] 3 All E.R. 659).
Two police constables had been informed
that
a car was involved
in a serious offence but had no knowledge
of
the particular circum-
stances. They kept watch on the car, which was in a public car park.
Land
Wentered the car intending to remove it, and, whilst the
constables, without charging or arresting L
or
W, were preventing
them from taking it away, one
of
the constables, who held up his
hand in a signal to stop, was assaulted. L was convicted
of
assaulting
the constable in the due execution
of
his duty, contrary to s. 38
of
the Act
of
1861, and W was convicted
of
counselling, procuring and
commanding the commission
of
the assault. On appeal
Land
W
contended
that
the constable was
not
acting in the due execution
of
his duty; the Crown argued
that
the constable was so acting to
preserve for use in court evidence
of
a crime and, alternatively,
was acting in execution
of
a duty arising under s. 223
of
the
Road
Traffic Act, 1960, the section which required adriver to stop on
being so required by a police constable in uniform. The convictions
were quashed by the
Court
of
Criminal Appeal. This somewhat
unexpected conclusion was reached by the following reasoning.
Since the constables' conduct was, on the face
of
it, an unlawful
interference with liberty or property, it was relevant to consider,
first, whether
that
conduct fell within the general scope
of
any duty
imposed by statute or recognized at common law, and, secondly,
if so, whether the conduct involved an unjustifiable use
of
powers
associated with
that
duty. A vital factor in the case was
that
at the
time the constables were
not
making a charge or arrest. They were
.138
March 1964
To continue reading
Request your trial