Baker v Crown Prosecution Service

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed by way of case stated from a decision of Deputy District Judge Callender Smith at the Magistrates' Court, who found the Appellant guilty of assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty on 10th April 2007, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. The prosecution had to prove that the police officer was assaulted while lawfully executing his duty. The incident arose following a police response to a report of a female acting erratically with a knife inside a residence at 120 Park Street, The City. Police Constables entered the Appellant's home without permission, relying on powers under section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to save life or limb. The Appellant allegedly assaulted the police officers during an attempted search for a knife. The Appellant challenged the lawfulness of the officers' entry and search, arguing they lacked authority and failed to inform her of their reasons for entry and search.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the officers, having entered and remained on the premises under section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 without consent or giving reasons, were acting lawfully and in the execution of their duty.
2. Whether, on the facts found, the police officers were entitled to remain on the premises pursuant to section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
3. Whether the officers were authorised or entitled under section 17(1)(e) to search the Appellant.
4. Whether the officers were authorised or entitled under section 17(1)(e) to use force or the threat of force to search the Appellant.
5. Whether, on the facts found, the police constable was acting in the execution of his duty.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The police officers were not acting in the execution of their duty when the Appellant assaulted the officer because they had no authority to search her.
• The officers failed to inform the Appellant of the reasons for their entry into the premises and the intended search.

Respondent's Arguments

• The police officers were entitled to enter the premises under section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to save life or limb.
• The power to search is limited to what is reasonably required for the purpose of entry, which in this case was to locate a knife posing a danger.
• The officers were justified in not informing the Appellant of the reasons for entry due to the emergency and risk involved.
• The officers were entitled to use reasonable force or the threat of force to conduct a search for the knife.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory powers under section 17(1)(e) and 17(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which permit police officers to enter and search premises without consent when reasonably required to save life or limb or prevent serious damage to property. The court confirmed that the officers' entry was lawful given the credible information indicating a risk to life or limb posed by the Appellant allegedly wielding a knife.

The court rejected the Appellant's argument that no authority existed for the search, noting that no search had actually occurred before the assault. The obligation to inform the occupier of reasons for entry was considered but found not to be absolute; in emergency situations, it may be impracticable or undesirable to provide such explanations. The court held that the officers were justified in not informing the Appellant immediately due to the rapidly evolving and potentially dangerous circumstances.

The court further clarified that the power to search under section 17(4) is limited to what is reasonably required for the purpose of entry, in this case to locate a weapon. The use or threat of reasonable force to conduct such a search is permitted. Finally, the court held that the assault on the police constable occurred while he was acting in the execution of his duty, given the lawful entry and search powers exercised.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation that police officers lawfully entered and remained on the premises under section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, acting within the execution of their duty. The officers were entitled to search the Appellant and use reasonable force or threat thereof for that purpose. The Appellant's assault on the police constable was therefore an assault on an officer executing his duty. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory provisions to the facts of this case.