Wood v Director of Public Prosecutions

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of the Crown Court at The City which, on 17th July 2007 dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction on 27th June 2006 by the North Hertfordshire Magistrates Court for two offences of assaulting police officers and one offence of threatening behaviour.

The charges arose from events on the evening of 23rd February 2006. Police received a report that a customer named "Fraser" had been disruptive and smashed an ashtray at a public house, Company A, in The City. Police officers Sergeant Cannon and Constables Davies and Brown attended and were given a vague description of "Fraser". A check on the Police National Computer suggested the appellant might be the person described, known for violence and infected with Hepatitis B. The officers, unfamiliar with the appellant, went to a nearby wine bar. Upon approach, a man fitting the description emerged. Sergeant Cannon took hold of the appellant’s arm and asked if he was "Fraser". The appellant denied it, and another officer took hold of his other arm. Shortly after, others emerged from the bar and referred to the appellant as "Fraser". The appellant then struggled violently, assaulting both constables and committing threatening behaviour. Due to his behaviour, the appellant was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time but was told as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter. The constables were assaulted while executing their duty, and the appellant was found guilty of threatening behaviour contrary to the Public Order Act 1986.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the initial restraint of the appellant by the police officers constituted a lawful arrest or merely a detention without grounds for arrest.
2. Whether the police officers were acting in the execution of their duty at the time the appellant was assaulted.
3. The legal distinction between detaining a person to confirm identity and effecting a lawful arrest under s.24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
4. Whether the appellant’s struggle constituted assaulting officers executing a lawful arrest or resisting unlawful restraint.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• A police officer is not acting in the execution of duty when restraining someone without grounds for arrest or when merely detaining rather than arresting.
• The initial restraint by Sergeant Cannon was not an arrest as he did not have reasonable grounds at that time and did not inform the appellant of an arrest.
• The finding that the distinction between detaining and arresting was mere semantics was incorrect and not supported by the facts.
• The appellant was entitled to use reasonable force to free himself from unlawful restraint.

Respondent's Arguments

• Sergeant Cannon and the constables had reasonable grounds to suspect the appellant had committed an offence and were entitled to arrest pursuant to s.24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
• Although Sergeant Cannon initially described his action as detaining, in reality he was effecting a lawful arrest.
• The officers were acting lawfully when the appellant struggled, making him guilty of assaulting officers and threatening behaviour.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ludlow & Others v Burgess 75 Cr App R 227	Police officers are not acting in execution of duty if restraining someone without grounds for arrest; such restraint is a technical assault.	Appellant’s counsel relied on this to argue that the initial restraint was unlawful and not an arrest.
Kenlin & Another v Gardiner & Another [1967] 2 Q.B. 510	Where police officers detain but do not intend or purport to arrest, the restraint constitutes a technical assault even if arrest would have been justified.	The court applied this precedent to conclude that the officers were not effecting a lawful arrest at the time of restraint and struggle, leading to quashing of convictions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the facts as found by the Crown Court and the submissions of both parties. It acknowledged that Sergeant Cannon initially described his action as detaining the appellant to confirm identity, not arresting him. The court noted that no findings were made regarding the intentions or statements of the other constables. Applying the principle from Kenlin & Another v Gardiner & Another, the court reasoned that restraint without an intention or purport to arrest constitutes an assault, even if an arrest would have been justified. Since Sergeant Cannon did not purport to arrest the appellant at the time he restrained him, and no assertion of arrest was made before the struggle, the restraint was unlawful. Consequently, the appellant’s resistance was not assaulting officers executing a lawful arrest. Therefore, the convictions could not stand on the facts as found.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was ALLOWED and the appellant's convictions for assaulting police officers and threatening behaviour were quashed.

The direct effect is that the appellant is acquitted of the offences charged. The court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed existing principles regarding the distinction between lawful arrest and unlawful restraint by police officers. This decision underscores the importance of police officers clearly communicating and acting within the scope of their arrest powers to avoid unlawful detention and associated liability.