Actual Belief Suffices under PACE s.54(4)(a)

Introduction

In Carter v Chief Constable of Essex Police ([2025] EWCA Civ 367) the England and Wales Court of Appeal considered when and how a custody officer may lawfully seize and forcibly remove a detainee’s clothing under section 54 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Mr Matthew Carter challenged his treatment in custody—particularly the strip‐search and forcible removal of clothing—claiming assault and battery. The main point of law was whether PACE s.54(4)(a) requires merely a genuine belief by the custody officer or instead a belief founded on reasonable grounds. Secondary issues concerned the necessity and proportionality of the force used to effect the clothing removal and the appropriate level of damages.

Summary of the Judgment

Lady Chief Justice Sharp, giving the leading judgment, and Lord Justice Edis dismissed Mr Carter’s appeal on all grounds. They held:

• Under PACE s.54(4)(a) the custody officer must “actually” hold one of the enumerated beliefs (e.g. that the detainee may use clothes to self‐harm) but there is no separate statutory requirement that the belief be “reasonable.”
• Once the true meaning of s.54(4)(a) was settled, no factual inquiry was needed into whether PS Bailey’s belief was “reasonable.” On the facts she genuinely believed it was necessary to remove Carter’s clothes to prevent self‐harm and to get him into anti‐self‐harm clothing.
• The trial judge (Recorder Dagnall) had also erred in concluding that the force used at the custody desk and in Cell 28 was unnecessary. The appellate court found that a detainee who had refused risk‐assessment questions, been agitated, struggled and bitten an officer could lawfully be immobilised and strip‐searched without delay to protect life and property.
• Given that the trial judge’s liability findings were reversed, challenges to the assessment of damages and quantum also fell away.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• R (on the application of O) v SS for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3 – Guidance on statutory interpretation, emphasizing ordinary meaning and parliamentary purpose.
• Khan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2008] EWCA Civ 723 – Parliament’s deliberate choice to distinguish between “belief” and “reasonable grounds.”
• PD v Chief Constable of Merseyside [2015] EWCA Civ 114 and Yousif v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 364 – Recorded lower‐court references to reasonableness but not binding on s.54(4)(a). Annex A of Code C applies “so far as the context allows.”
• Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 – Parliamentary materials only admissible where a provision is ambiguous, which s.54(4)(a) is not.

2. Legal Reasoning

Applying the literal rule, the court noted that s.54(4)(a) simply requires that “the custody officer believes” the clothes may be used for one of the four purposes (self‐harm; harm to others; damage; escape). By contrast, s.54(4)(b), s.17, s.19 and s.24 expressly require “reasonable grounds for believing.” The omission of “reasonable” in sub-paragraph (a) must be deliberate. Under PACE s.117, reasonable force may be used to exercise any PACE power that does not require consent. The court declined to import a higher threshold—actual plus reasonable belief—because that would undermine legal certainty and trespass on Parliament’s role. Human rights principles (Art.3 & 8 ECHR) do not require an expanded interpretative gloss where the statutory language is clear.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies that custody officers assessing detainees under PACE s.54(4)(a) need only hold an honest belief—no more—to justify seizing or strip‐searching clothing. It reinforces operational flexibility in high‐pressure custody environments where time is critical and risk may be acute. Future cases will apply a uniform actual‐belief standard. Courts will continue to scrutinize whether such beliefs were genuinely held, but not whether they were objectively reasonable. This may reduce judicial second-guessing of custody decisions but underscores the need for clear contemporaneous recording of officers’ reasons.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Actual vs. Reasonable Belief

“Actual belief” means the officer genuinely holds the view; “reasonable belief” means that an objective person would also consider that view justified. Under s.54(4)(a), only the former is required.

Non-Intimate vs. Intimate Search

Non-intimate (outer-clothes) searches may be done if necessary. Forcible removal of all clothing is a “strip search” under Code C Annex A but governed by s.54(4)(a) when to prevent self-harm or risk of escape, not just to find concealed articles.

Use of Force (PACE s.117)

Any PACE power that does not require consent may be exercised with reasonable force. Necessity and proportionality must be assessed contextually.

Conclusion

Carter v Chief Constable of Essex Police decisively holds that in ordering the seizure of detainee clothing under PACE s.54(4)(a), a custody officer need only have a genuine belief in one of the statutory risks. No separate reasonable-grounds requirement applies. The ruling preserves a clear statutory threshold, acknowledges the operational realities of custody, and confines assessments of officers’ beliefs to their subjective sincerity. It also underscores that once a lawful belief is established, the use of necessary and proportionate force to execute the search is lawful under PACE s.117. This precedent will guide custody decision-making and judicial review in future detainee-treatment claims.