Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from an order made by His Honour Judge Catlin in the Reading County Court, awarding damages of £1,500 to the Respondent following a trial concerning his arrest on 31 May 1998. The Respondent, a ten-year-old boy approximately 4 feet 9 inches tall at the time, claimed damages for trespass to the person, assault, and false imprisonment, alleging unlawful arrest. The trial lasted five days, partly before a jury, which answered specific questions regarding the arrest, including whether the arresting officer had a genuine suspicion of violent disorder and what was communicated to the Respondent at the time of arrest.
The arrest stemmed from a pre-planned police operation targeting individuals suspected of violent disorder during an anti-vivisection demonstration at Hillgrove Farm on 18 April 1998. The Respondent was identified from video footage as having thrown rocks during the demonstration and was arrested on 31 May 1998 along with others. The arresting officer, PC McKenzie, informed the Respondent that he was being arrested on suspicion of violent disorder at Hillgrove Farm on 18 April 1998.
Following the arrest, the Respondent was taken to Newbury police station with delays occurring before processing and interview. The judge found certain periods of detention to be excessive and unlawful. The claim was initiated in 2002, alleging the arrest was unlawful due to insufficient information being given at the time of arrest, and later amended to include excessive detention.
The judge ruled that the words used by the arresting officer were insufficient to inform the Respondent of the grounds for arrest, rendering the arrest unlawful, and that the detention between approximately 20:15 and 21:21 was excessive and unlawful. Damages were awarded accordingly. The Chief Constable appealed these findings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the arrest was lawful under section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), specifically whether the Respondent was sufficiently informed of the grounds of his arrest at or as soon as reasonably practicable after the arrest.
- Assuming the arrest was lawful, whether the period of detention between approximately 20:15 and 21:21 on 31 May 1998 was lawful or excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The words spoken by PC McKenzie at the time of arrest were sufficient to inform the Respondent of the grounds of arrest, satisfying section 28(3) of PACE and Article 5(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The phrase "on suspicion of violent disorder at Hillgrove Farm on 18 April 1998" provided both essential legal and factual grounds for the arrest in simple, non-technical language.
- It was not practicable nor legally required to provide detailed particulars of the alleged offence during arrest, especially in the context of a large-scale disorder involving many individuals.
- The delay in the interview and detention was justifiable due to the exigencies of policing, including processing a large number of suspects and assembling an interview team.
- The burden of proving the lawfulness of detention minute by minute rested on the appellant, and the delay was a reasonable inference based on the circumstances.
Respondent's Arguments
- The words used by the arresting officer were insufficient to inform the Respondent of the specific grounds of arrest, particularly the factual basis related to throwing stones and involvement in violent disorder.
- The Respondent, being a small ten-year-old child, required more detailed and clear information to understand the nature of the offence he was suspected of.
- The period of detention between approximately 20:15 and 21:21 was excessive and unlawful, as the police failed to justify the delay in conducting the interview.
- The Respondent's case was that he first understood the reason for his arrest only upon arrival at the custody suite, not at the time of arrest.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573 |
Requirement that a person arrested must be informed of the true grounds of arrest; failure to do so renders arrest unlawful and liable for false imprisonment. |
Established foundational principles on informing arrested persons of grounds; principles were applied and modernised in the context of PACE section 28(3). |
| Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom (1990) 13 EHRR 157 |
Article 5(2) ECHR requires prompt information in a language understood about reasons for arrest and charges. |
Adopted as best modern statement of the principle that arrested persons must be told essential legal and factual grounds promptly and understandably. |
| Abbassy v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1990] 1 WLR 385 |
Objective assessment of adequacy of information given to arrested person; information must be reasonably available to the officer. |
Supported the court's view that the subjective understanding of the arrested person is irrelevant; focus is on objective sufficiency of information. |
| Mercer v Chief Constable of Lancashire [1991] 1 WLR 367 |
Burden on police to justify detention minute by minute; unlawful detention if delay is unjustified. |
Applied in assessing whether the period of detention was lawful and whether the police discharged their burden of proof regarding delay. |
| Wilson v Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary (2000) 1 Po LR 367 |
Consideration of sufficiency of information given at arrest under PACE and ECHR. |
Referenced for consistency in principles regarding informing arrested persons, acknowledging that each case depends on its facts. |
| Clark v Chief Constable of North Wales Police, CA, unreported 5 April 2000 |
Application of principles on informing arrested persons and assessing reasonableness of police conduct. |
Used as an example of application of established principles without adding new rules. |
| Wilding v Chief Constable of Lancashire, unreported 22 May 1995 |
Reasonableness of custody sergeant’s decision to detain suspect; common sense applied to competing considerations. |
Guided court's approach to assessing reasonableness of detention and delay in processing detainees. |
| Woods v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, unreported 26 May 1995 |
Similar to Wilding, focused on reasonableness of detention decisions by custody officers. |
Supported court's evaluation of detention delays and lawfulness under PACE Code C. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the lawfulness of the arrest by focusing on whether the words spoken by the arresting officer satisfied section 28(3) of PACE, requiring that the arrested person be informed of the grounds for arrest promptly and in a manner they can understand. The court emphasised that the test is objective, and the arrested person’s subjective understanding is irrelevant.
Drawing on the principles from Christie v Leachinsky and the European Court of Human Rights decision in Fox, Campbell and Hartley, the court held that the arrested person must be told both the essential legal and factual grounds for arrest in simple, non-technical language. The court rejected the judge’s approach that the arresting officer’s failure to obtain or be provided with more detailed information was relevant; instead, the focus was solely on whether the words spoken to the Respondent were sufficient.
The court found that telling the Respondent he was arrested on suspicion of violent disorder at Hillgrove Farm on 18 April 1998 was sufficient to convey the essential legal and factual grounds. The reference to time and place was clear, and the term "violent disorder" was an adequate description of the offence, even for a ten-year-old, especially with his mother present. The court acknowledged the difficulty in providing detailed particulars in large-scale disorder arrests and accepted that the phrase used was ordinarily sufficient.
On the issue of excessive detention, the court noted that the appellant bore the burden of proving the lawfulness of detention minute by minute. The judge’s finding that the delay between approximately 20:15 and 21:21 was unexplained and unjustified was supported by the evidence, particularly the absence of any explanation from the interviewing officers and the custody record. The court held that the delay was attributable to the absence of the interview team and that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof for that period.
Accordingly, the court concluded the initial arrest was lawful, but the detention for about an hour was excessive and unlawful.
Holding and Implications
The court allowed the appeal on the question of the lawfulness of the arrest, holding that the arrest was lawful. This reversed the trial judge’s finding that the arrest was unlawful due to insufficient information being given at the time of arrest.
However, the court upheld the finding that the detention between approximately 20:15 and 21:21 was excessive and unlawful, entitling the Respondent to damages for false imprisonment for that period.
The prior award of £1,500, which covered four hours of false imprisonment and related claims, was set aside. The court substituted an order for an appropriate award of damages corresponding to the one hour of unlawful detention. The parties were directed to agree on the quantum of damages, subject to court approval due to the Respondent’s minor status.
No new legal precedents were established; the decision reaffirms established principles from PACE and the European Convention on Human Rights regarding informing arrested persons and the burden on police to justify detention periods.