The Police and the Law
| Date | 01 July 1944 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4401700302 |
| Published date | 01 July 1944 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Police
and
the
Law
THE
RIGHT
OF ARREST
FOR"
UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION OF
GOODS"
Two judgments of considerable interest to the Police were pro-
nounced in the Court of Appeal in Dumbell v. Roberts (60
T.L.R.
231)
on the right of arrest
both
as it exists at common law and
under
statute. Before discussing the legal rulings
the
substance of the
case may be shortly noted.
The
plaintiff appealed from a decision at
Liverpool Assizes in which his action for false imprisonment against
two police officers was dismissed. He
had
been arrested by them
under
the provisions of the Liverpool Corporation Act,
1921,
there
being
no
warrant for the arrest,
and
was charged
under
'that. Act with
being in unlawful possession of a quantity of soap-flakes.
This
charge was dismissed by the city magistrate without any reflection on
the
accused's conduct or character.
The
Court
of Appeal held
that
the
police officers
had
purported
to act only
under
the
powers con-
ferred by the Act of
1921;
that they
had
not
complied with the
conditions laid down by the
Act;
that
the
power to arrest without
warrant was statutory
only;
and
that
the
trial
judge
was not entitled,
as he did, to
decidethe
case on a common law plea of justification, for
no
such
justification was pleaded.
The
defendants were held to be
liable
and
a new trial was ordered, limited to ascertaining the amount
of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. .
The
facts as disclosed by
the
evidence were
that
the plaintiff
was arrested
about
10.30
p.m., while he was riding home on his
bicycle from a garage where he was employed. Police officers
overtook
him
and, having stopped him, inquired -about his rear light
and
then
asked
him
what was in a bag or sack which he was carrying
on
the
frame of the bicycle, and on being. told soap-flakes (which
they knew was a rationed article, though he did not) asked where he
got them. He replied, from his mate.
The
latter was
the
regular
driver of the ambulance of the Merseyside Hospitals Committee,
of which the. plaintiff was
the
regular attendant and he was dressed
in their uniform.
The
officers
and
the plaintiff went back to the
. garage.
It
was in dispute whether the plaintiff invited
them
to go
to the garage or whether the officers decided of their own motion
-to go back with him.
It
was alleged
that
they did
not
ask.the plain-
tiff's name and address before arresting him.
The
garage was the
garage of the Merseyside Hospitals' Committee
and
some eighteen
men were employed there.
It
was further alleged
that
the officers
arrested the plaintiff outside the garage on his telling
them
that
his
164
To continue reading
Request your trial