Cumberbatch v Crown Prosecution Service

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns two appeals by case stated involving questions about when police officers are acting in the execution of their duty. The first appeal arises from the conviction of the Appellant for offences of resisting police officers during an arrest at a shopping centre following a reported assault. The Appellant was arrested by a police officer after refusing to leave the scene and resisted the arrest. Two other officers came to assist in the arrest, during which the Appellant was sprayed with captor spray. The Appellant was charged with resisting each officer involved. After conviction in the Magistrates' Court, the Appellant appealed on the basis that the initial arrest was unlawful, arguing that the assisting officers could not have been acting in the execution of their duty. The Crown Court found the arrest by the first officer unlawful but held that the assisting officers were acting lawfully in subduing and completing the arrest, dismissing the appeal as to them.

The second appeal concerns the Appellant's conviction for assaulting a police officer during the arrest of her father under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Appellant intervened after officers showed crude treatment towards her father and was restrained by an officer, whom she then assaulted. The Appellant challenged the lawfulness of her father's arrest, arguing that if the arrest was unlawful, the officer restraining her could not have been acting in the execution of her duty. The Crown Court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the officer was acting to prevent a breach of the peace caused by the Appellant's aggressive behaviour and was therefore acting lawfully.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Where the arrest of a person by a uniformed police officer is unlawful, are other police officers who assist in that arrest acting in the execution of their duty?
2. Can a person be guilty of resisting police officers assisting in an unlawful arrest?
3. If the answer to the above is no, should the Crown Court have allowed appeals against convictions for resisting the assisting officers once the arrest was found unlawful?
4. If the arrest of a detained person is unlawful, is an officer restraining a third party to prevent a breach of the peace acting in the execution of their duty?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The initial arrest was unlawful due to lack of reasonable grounds and failure to comply with statutory requirements.
• Assisting officers could not be acting in the execution of their duty if the arrest they assisted was unlawful.
• The Appellant was entitled to resist the arrest and the assisting officers.
• In the second appeal, the Appellant argued that the officer restraining her was not acting in the execution of her duty if the underlying arrest was unlawful.

Respondent's Arguments

• The assisting officers had a duty to support their colleague and prevent a breach of the peace, thus acting lawfully.
• In the second appeal, the officer restraining the Appellant was acting lawfully to prevent a breach of the peace arising from the Appellant's aggressive conduct.
• The legality of the underlying arrest was not essential to the charge of assaulting the officer restraining the Appellant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the Crown Court's finding that the initial arrest by the first officer was unlawful due to lack of reasonable suspicion and failure to inform the Appellant of the grounds for arrest as required by statute. This unlawfulness meant that the first officer was not acting in the execution of his duty. The court then considered whether the assisting officers could be acting lawfully by assisting in an unlawful arrest. It concluded that they were not, as they had not formed any independent view of guilt and were merely assisting a colleague. The court relied on established common law principles from Christie v Leachinsky and Bentley v Brudzinski that a citizen is entitled to resist an unlawful arrest and that reasonable force may be used to resist such arrest or assist in resisting it.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the assisting officers were acting to prevent a breach of the peace, noting that there was no evidence the Appellant was posing a threat to others at the time. It emphasized that the right to resist an unlawful arrest would be nullified if a person could be guilty of resisting officers assisting in that arrest.

Regarding the second appeal, the court recognized that while police officers may use reasonable force to prevent an imminent breach of the peace, the officer restraining the Appellant was so closely involved with the unlawful arrest and detention of her father that she was not acting in the execution of her duty. The court distinguished this from cases where there is an independent breach of the peace unrelated to an unlawful arrest.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are allowed.

The court held that where an arrest by a police officer is unlawful, other officers assisting in that arrest are not acting in the execution of their duty. Consequently, a person cannot be guilty of resisting those assisting officers in such circumstances, provided the resistance is not unreasonable. The Crown Court erred in dismissing the appeals against the charges related to resisting the assisting officers once it was found that the initial arrest was unlawful. Similarly, in the second appeal, the officer restraining the Appellant was not acting in the execution of her duty if the underlying arrest was unlawful.

The convictions against the appellants are quashed. The court ordered the restoration of fines, compensation, and costs paid by the appellants. The decision clarifies the limits of police officers' duties when assisting in arrests and affirms the right of citizens to resist unlawful arrests comprehensively. No new precedent beyond the application of existing principles was established, but the ruling provides authoritative guidance on the execution of police duties in such contexts.