The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v MR
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Thornton DBE,Mrs Justice Thornton |
| Judgment Date | 09 April 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 888 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB/2018/0279 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 09 April 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 888 (QB)
Mrs Justice Thornton DBE
Case No: QB/2018/0279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ms Charlotte Ventham (instructed by Metropolitan Police Legal Department) for the Appellant
Mr Stephen Cragg QC (instructed by Imran Khan & Partners) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 19 March 2019
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
This is an appeal against a decision made by Her Honour Judge Baucher following a trial at the Central London County Court in which she gave judgment on 3 July 2018. By that decision, the judge upheld MR's claim for false imprisonment and assault following what was, in her judgment, an unlawful arrest carried out by police. She made an order granting damages of £2,750 to MR. Permission to appeal was rejected by the lower Court at a hearing on 14 September 2018.
The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis appeals against the judgment in the Court below on grounds that the Judge erred in finding that the arresting officer's belief in the need to arrest MR was not objectively reasonable. MR cross appeals, asking this court to uphold the decision of the lower court on the additional or separate basis that there were no objectively reasonable grounds for the arresting officer's suspicion that MR had committed the offence of harassment.
Section 24 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) provides the police with statutory authority to arrest a suspect who they reasonably suspect of committing an offence, providing the arrest is necessary.
The following issues are before the court:
1) Was the officer's suspicion that MR had committed the offence of harassment objectively justified at the point at which he arrested MR?
2) Was it objectively necessary to arrest MR, to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of MR?
Background facts
The Respondent, MR, was in an intermittent relationship with Ms A for approximately 15 months prior to January 2010. On 6 January 2010, Ms A contacted the police to make a complaint against MR. She was visited by a police officer, DC Farrimond, the next day and provided a statement in which she alleged she had received numerous texts and calls from MR since she had broken off their relationship, despite requests from her that he leave her alone. She also alleged that on one occasion in October 2009, after a number of calls from him, the intercom at her home had been buzzed continuously for some time.
DC Farrimond carried out enquiries regarding the name given to him by Ms A but was unable to trace anyone with his name. Ms A had however provided police with MR's mobile number.
On 11 January 2010, MR received a telephone call from PC Omodoye based at Walworth Police Station and arrangements were made for MR to attend Walworth Police Station. According to MR he arranged to attend the station on 13 January and subsequently rearranged the appointment for a day earlier. The crime reporting information system (CRIS) indicates that MR was due to attend on 11 January but no one has suggested that MR was seeking to evade the appointment.
On 12 January, at 8am, MR voluntarily attended the police station. According to MR, he waited in the foyer area. He was approached by DS Murphy at 8.30am. DS Murphy immediately arrested MR on suspicion of harassment. MR said he was shocked by the turn of events and sought to explain that he was willing to co-operate with the police. He was interviewed by another police constable. He was photographed. His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. He was released on conditional bail, having been detained for approximately 6 hours and 50 minutes.
MR's phone was retained by police. Ms A also surrendered her phone to police. The police reviewed the text messages between Ms A and MR. Their content was friendly. The texts were not threatening or abusive on the part of MR. They did not reveal any clear request by Ms A that MR leave her alone. The police accordingly reviewed the case and decided there had been no crime committed.
On 2 February 2010, MR was informed no further action would be taken against him.
The judgment below
At trial, HHJ Baucher heard oral evidence from MR and the arresting officer, DS Murphy. She found DS Murphy to be a careful and considered witness who presented as a professional and experienced detective.
The judge rejected the contention that DS Murphy would have just arrested MR because he had been told to do so by another officer. She accepted his evidence that he reviewed the entirety of the CRIS report prior to arresting MR.
She accepted his evidence that, having considered the CRIS report, he suspected MR of committing the offence of harassment. Having reminded herself that the threshold for suspicion is a low one she concluded that the officer's suspicions were objectively reasonable on the basis that the elements of the offence of harassment were made out on the face of the CRIS. Her reasoning was as follows:
“37 When considering whether DS Murphy's decision was objectively reasonable Mr Cragg did not contend that further enquiries were required or that DS Murphy was not entitled to rely upon the contents of the CRIS. Indeed, for the purpose of considering objectivity I was invited by both Counsel to review the entirety of the CRIS report up to the time of arrest. I confirm that I have done so to consider whether the suspicion was objectively reasonable.
38 I am satisfied that the officer was entitled to consider PS Crockett's opinion and reject it. It was clear that Ms A was referring to persistent unwanted conduct and the Claimant had been asking questions about her existing relationship when she had requested there should be no contact. DS Murphy placed emphasis on the fact that the victim had come to the police as a last resort and I consider that he was entitled to reach the view: “I would have believed there was some measure of alarm or distress because regardless of whether she showed it she was saying it was persistent and unwanted conduct”.
The Judge then considered whether DS Murphy had reasonable grounds for believing that it was necessary to arrest MR, pursuant to the test under section 24(4) PACE. She found that the officer's stated contemporaneous reason for the need to arrest MR was ‘ so that you can be interviewed on tape’. This was then recorded on the custody record as ‘to allow for the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the detained person’ (s24(5)(e) PACE). Having considered the evidence, the Judge accepted DS Murphy's evidence that he believed the arrest was necessary. However, she went on to conclude that the officer's belief in the need to arrest MR was not objectively justified. She did not consider it reasonable to arrest MR at the outset. Matters could have proceeded by way of a voluntary interview and an arrest made, if circumstances required:
“66. Thus, it is not a question of asking whether any officer could have made the decision but I must direct myself to DS Murphy and his grounds. Ms Ventham fought valiantly to persuade me that any objective assessment of the factors justified the necessity of the arrest. I am not so persuaded. DS Murphy conceded that on a scale this offence was at the lower end. In those circumstances I simply do not accept that it was reasonable for the officer to have arrested the Claimant from the outset. He could have proceeded with a voluntary interview and then if necessary arrested the Claimant if circumstances dictated such. The reason opined by DS Murphy for not doing so on his analysis applies in every case-namely that the Claimant would be free to leave if he found any topic too difficult. Further this was not a case where, had a decision to conduct a voluntary interview been made, the officer would necessarily have intended to arrest the Claimant. Whilst I accept had such occurred that would have led to delay but on the facts of this case I cannot see that any delay would have impeded any investigation. I do not consider that DS Murphy's view that there was some urgency to progress the investigation was justified. Further any interview, whether voluntary or otherwise, would have been taped.
67. I also do not accept that the need to establish the Claimant's true identity was a reasonable ground justifying the necessity of the arrest. The Claimant would have had to provide his particulars for the purpose of the voluntary interview and whilst that would not have been as forensic as fingerprints or DNA the Claimant's full name and address as available on his passport could have been run through the police national database.
68. I am also not satisfied that bail conditions provided an objective justification on the particular facts of this case albeit I accept that bail conditions can form part of section S24(5)(e) notwithstanding the ground (d) provision. Whilst on the basis of the CRIS report DS Murphy did not know that the Claimant had agreed not to contact Ms A there were other means at the officer's disposal to ensure there was no contact without arrest. He could have issued a harassment warning.
69. DS Murphy said that in his experience the Claimant was unlikely to volunteer his phone. I accept DS Murphy's evidence but I am not satisfied that belief, when objectively reviewed, was reasonable. Firstly the text messages and received calls would have been evident on Ms A's phone and secondly on DS Murphy's analysis every case involving telephoning evidence would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Alex Andrews v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
...to have “reasonable suspicion” in order to make an arrest has been considered by the courts on a number of occasions. In Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v MR [2019] EWHC 888 (QB), the High Court restated, at para.22, that “the threshold for a police officer to suspect the commissi......
-
ABC v Derbyshire County Council
...reason in order to ensure interviews under arrest were based on reasonable grounds. 411 As the Claimants had cited Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v MR [2019] EWHC 888 (QB) at [23], [30], [33]–[39] and [47]–[49] and Rashid at [33]–[37], Mr Basu anticipated that their case might be......
-
ST v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police
...Essex Police [2017]] EWHC 2140 (QB) necessary is a normal English word which should be applied without paraphrase. In Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis v MR [2019] EWHC 888 (QB), Mrs Justice Thornton stated of the test of necessity “The test of necessity is more than simply ‘d......
-
Barry Scott Against Kate Frame, Police Investigations & Review Commissioner
...it was not a synonym for “desirable” or “convenient” (at paras [38] and [40]); in Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis v MR [2019] EWHC 888 (QB), again, the dicta in Hayes was referred to 25 with Thornton J noting both that “necessity” meant more than “desirable” or “convenient” an......
-
Making an arrest in order to activate PACE entry and search powers: The Law Commission and a missed opportunity for clarification
...(Commencement No.4 and Transitory Provision) Order 2005, SI No 3495, art2(1)(m).13. In Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v MR [2019] EWHC 888; Thornton J observed: ‘The test of necessity is morethan simply “desirable” or “convenient” or “reasonable”. It is a high bar, introduced for......