Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a minor referred to as "B" pursuant to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, was convicted on 8 January 2008 by the West London Youth Court of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty and using threatening or abusive words or behaviour contrary to section 4 of the Public Order Act. The appellant appealed by way of case stated.
The facts found by the justices were that on 5 May 2007, Police Constable Townsend, on plain clothed patrol in the Shepherds Bush area, encountered the appellant who exhibited signs consistent with cannabis use. PC Townsend suspected a drug offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act and informed the appellant that a search under section 23 of that Act would be conducted. Although PC Townsend gave his name and police station as required by statute, he did not produce a warrant card or other documentary evidence of his status as a police constable. The appellant resisted the search physically and verbally, threatening violence, and was handcuffed and arrested. No knife was found on the appellant.
The magistrates found the search lawful despite the failure to comply fully with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code of Conduct, concluding that PC Townsend took reasonable steps to comply with his statutory duties under section 2(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court was entitled to find that, despite the failure of PC Townsend to produce documentary evidence, he had taken all reasonable steps to comply with his duty under section 2(2)(b)(i) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Code of Conduct.
- If not, whether that failure rendered the search unlawful.
- If the search and use of force on the appellant were unlawful, whether the appellant could properly be convicted of an offence under section 4(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments
- Parliament does not require the warrant card or documentary evidence to be produced in every case; it is sufficient if the officer has taken reasonable steps to produce it.
- Physical resistance by the appellant may prevent full production of documentation prior to the search.
- Reference to earlier case law (Forde) was argued to support the respondent’s position, though the court noted the statutory language post-dates that case and limits its applicability.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Mustapha Osman v Southwark Crown Court [1999] 163 JP 735 |
Suggested that production of documentary evidence (e.g., warrant card) may be more practical than oral explanations to avoid interference with police duties. |
Supported the importance of producing documentary evidence before or at the time of verbal introduction for a lawful search. |
| R v Christopher Bristol [2007] EWCA Crim 3214 |
Confirmed compliance with statutory requirements as a precondition for lawful search. |
Reinforced that failure to produce warrant card renders the search unlawful. |
| Forde [1985] 81 Crim App R 19 |
Addressed police search powers prior to the statutory language of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. |
Found to be of limited assistance due to subsequent statutory changes. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the statutory requirements under section 2(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which mandates that a constable not in uniform must take reasonable steps to produce documentary evidence of their status before commencing a search. The court emphasized the distinct and more important duty for plain clothed officers to produce a warrant card, as uniformed officers have their uniform as a visible indication of authority.
The court rejected any inference that the officer was prevented by the appellant from producing the warrant card, noting the absence of evidence that the officer attempted or intended to produce it. The court held that providing only verbal identification was insufficient to satisfy the statutory duty for plain clothed officers.
Accordingly, the court found the search unlawful because the statutory preconditions were not met. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to resist the search using reasonable force. The court further clarified that while resistance to an unlawful search cannot constitute obstruction of a constable in the execution of their duty, excessive force or threats might still constitute an offence under the Public Order Act.
Holding and Implications
The court's final decision was to QUASH the appellant’s conviction for obstruction of a police constable and substitute an acquittal on that charge, recognizing the appellant's right to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful search.
The conviction for threatening or abusive words or behaviour was also quashed, but the court remitted this charge to the justices for reconsideration on whether the appellant’s conduct was excessive force, which could still constitute an offence. The Crown Prosecution Service was granted the opportunity to review whether to pursue the prosecution further.
No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory duties and case law. The decision directly affects the parties by overturning the obstruction conviction and requiring reconsideration of the public order offence.