Introduction

The case of Miller & Anor v R ([2024] EWCA Crim 794) before the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) addresses significant issues concerning the lawful use of force by private citizens. The applicants, Samuel Miller and James Moss, were convicted of false imprisonment stemming from their actions as members of the Child Online Safety Team (COST), a voluntary organization aimed at combating online pedophilia through sting operations and citizen's arrests.

The core issues in this appeal revolve around whether the trial judge erred in excluding certain defenses related to the use of reasonable force under the Criminal Law Act 1967 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), as well as questions regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the consideration of the defendants' bad character.

Summary of the Judgment

On April 6, 2023, in the Crown Court at Newcastle Upon Tyne, Miller and Moss were convicted of false imprisonment by a majority verdict of 10-1. Miller received a nine-month imprisonment sentence, later amended to ten months, alongside a Criminal Behaviour Order. Moss was given a Suspended Sentence Order with specific conditions including a curfew.

The defendants sought to appeal their convictions on several grounds, primarily challenging the trial judge's decision to exclude defenses related to the reasonable use of force under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, and arguing that the judge improperly summarized legal precedents regarding the reasonableness of force. They also contended errors in admitting hearsay evidence and directions concerning their bad character.

Upon reviewing the appeals, the Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, upholding the original convictions. The court concluded that the trial judge correctly applied the law in excluding the additional defenses, properly directed the jury on the issue of reasonable force, and appropriately handled the admissibility of hearsay and bad character evidence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The trial judge referenced key cases such as R v Jones [2006] UKHL 16 and DPP v Stratford Magistrates' Court [2017] EWHC 1794 (Admin) to distill principles regarding the legitimate use of force by citizens. These precedents emphasize the state’s monopoly on force, the necessity of calling law enforcement before taking matters into one’s own hands, and the stringent conditions under which self-help measures are permissible.

Additionally, the judgment considered Laporte v CC of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55 and R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824 concerning the admissibility and use of bad character evidence. These cases establish boundaries to prevent misuse of character evidence to suggest propensity for certain behaviors without proper safeguards.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously examined whether the defendants’ actions fell within the lawful use of force as delineated by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and section 24A of PACE. The judge concluded that while the defendants claimed to act out of necessity to prevent ongoing and future offenses, the lack of imminent harm or immediate threat negated the reasonableness of their forceful actions.

The Court emphasized that reasonable force under section 3 must correspond to the immediacy and severity of the threat. Since the supposed offense (attempting to meet a child following grooming) was not being perpetrated at the moment of detention and there was anticipated no immediate harm, the use of force was deemed unjustified.

Moreover, the court upheld the trial judge's exclusion of additional defenses, finding that section 24A of PACE does not implicitly broaden the scope of section 3 of the CLA 1967. The hybrid test applied by the judge was affirmed as appropriate and not narrower than the statutory provisions.

Regarding hearsay evidence, the court supported the judge’s decision to admit such statements from Sydney and Tracey Wilkinson. The defense’s claims that the evidence was inadmissible were rejected based on the corroborative evidence of the defendants’ behavior and the visible fear exhibited by the witnesses, which satisfied the legal standards for admitting hearsay under section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

On the matter of bad character evidence, the court clarified that the trial judge’s instructions were confined to assessing the defendants' credibility, not their propensity to commit further offenses. This adherence to legal standards negated the appellant’s claims that their bad character was improperly considered.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent limitations on private citizens' use of force in law enforcement activities. It underscores the legal expectation that individuals should defer to trained law enforcement officers rather than taking independent action, especially in the absence of immediate threats or imminent harm.

Furthermore, the case delineates clear boundaries regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the use of bad character evidence, reinforcing the principles that such evidence must be carefully scrutinized to prevent prejudice against the defendant.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when addressing the legality of citizen's arrests and the permissible scope of self-defense or prevention of crime by non-law enforcement individuals. It serves as a precedent that protects both individuals’ rights against unlawful detention and the integrity of the criminal justice system against unregulated self-help measures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967

This section allows individuals to use reasonable force in specific circumstances, such as preventing a crime or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders. However, "reasonable force" is strictly interpreted and must correspond to the immediate threat or offense.

Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)

This provision grants powers to non-police individuals to arrest without a warrant in certain situations, such as witnessing someone committing an indictable offense or having reasonable grounds to suspect such an offense. However, the use of force under this section remains bound by the requirement of reasonableness as per section 3 of the CLA 1967.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay refers to statements made outside of court that are presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible due to reliability concerns, but exceptions exist, such as statements made under fear for one's safety, which was applicable in this case.

Bad Character Evidence

This involves introducing evidence of a defendant's previous misconduct to suggest a propensity to behave in a certain way. The law restricts its use to specific purposes, such as assessing credibility, preventing prejudicial assumptions about the defendant's character influencing the verdict improperly.

Reasonableness of Force

The concept of "reasonable force" assesses whether the level of force used was appropriate and proportionate to the situation faced. It is subjective, considering the defendant's perception and situational context at the time of the incident.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Miller & Anor v R reaffirms the judiciary's cautious approach towards private individuals exercising law enforcement powers. By upholding the convictions, the court emphasized that the use of force by citizens is only justifiable under strict conditions of imminence and necessity, aligning with established legal principles to maintain public order and prevent vigilante actions.

This judgment serves as a critical guide for both legal practitioners and the public on the boundaries of citizen's arrests and the lawful use of force. It underscores the importance of involving trained law enforcement officers in criminal interventions and maintaining the integrity of the legal process against unregulated self-help measures.