The Police and the Law
| Published date | 01 October 1941 |
| Date | 01 October 1941 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4101400402 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Police and the Law
ARREST
WITHOUT
WARRANT
THERE has been yet another ruling on the extent to which
the Police may arrest without warrant when some indis-
tinctly defined power of summary arrest is conferred by statute.
The
question whether an arrest may be made on reasonable
suspicion or only if the offence has actually been committed
is an old one.
In
Stevenson v. Aubrook (1941, 2
All
E.R.
476)
at the Manchester Assizes the previous authorities were again
judicially discussed in a somewhat critical spirit,
but
the
plaintiff succeeded in his action for false imprisonment by the
Police who had arrested him. These authorities were discussed
in
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
in October 1940 (vol.
XIII,
p. 373)
and the recent remarks of
Mr.
Justice Hallett give support to
the views then expressed.
The
facts in Stevenson v, Aubrook may be shortly stated.
The
plaintiff brought an action for unlawful arrest and false im-
prisonment against two police constables and an inspector. A
woman complained that a man riding a bicycle past her garden
had indecently exposed himself to her and she went to an A.R.P.
post to inquire for the Police. There was no policeman there
but
the person in charge telephoned for the Police and passed
on the complaint and a description of the man. On receipt
of the complaint two police constables went out in a police
car to find the man, soon overtook him, arrested him, and
returned to the station.
It
was later found that there had not
in fact been any indecent exposure and the plaintiff was
released on his own bail Iihours after his arrest. On the
following day leave to withdraw the charge was obtained from
the magistrate.
The
plaintiff was awarded 40s. damages
against each of the two constables and
20S.
against the inspec-
tor, without costs.
It
will be noticed that the amount of
damages was far less than is often given against the Police in
this type of case.
The
reason seems to be that the woman
complainant after setting police process in motion later went
back on her story and said that she had not actually seen the
man's person. And when she was asked why the offence had
343
To continue reading
Request your trial