Osman v Southwark Crown Court

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Southwark Crown Court, which upheld two convictions of the Appellant for assaulting two police officers in the execution of their duty. The Appellant was sentenced to concurrent detention of 21 days in a young offender institution, a sentence already served at the time of this appeal. The Crown Court found facts leading to the convictions and posed two legal questions for this court's opinion by amendment. The appeal challenges the lawfulness of the search conducted by the officers and whether the assaults occurred in the execution of their duty.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the failure of the police officers to provide their names and station prior to conducting the search rendered the search unlawful.
2. Whether the Appellant's conduct amounted to consent to the search, thereby justifying the officers' actions and the subsequent assault charges.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The search was unlawful because the officers did not comply with the statutory duty under section 2 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to inform the person searched of their name and station before commencing the search.
• The Appellant did not consent to the search, and even if consent was assumed, it did not justify the assault charges as the search itself was unlawful.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Crown Prosecution Service argued that the officers took "reasonable steps" in the circumstances, as the search was conducted openly in daylight by uniformed officers, and thus complied with statutory requirements.
• It was submitted that the Appellant's conduct could be interpreted as consenting to the search.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused primarily on the statutory framework governing searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Section 2 of PACE imposes a mandatory duty on constables to take reasonable steps to inform the individual of the officer's name, station, and the grounds for the search before commencing it. The court found that the officers failed to comply with these requirements, rendering the search unlawful.

The court rejected the CPS argument that the visible presence of uniformed officers conducting the search sufficed as reasonable steps. It emphasized that the statutory duty requires active disclosure prior to the search, not merely passive visibility. The court further held that consent was irrelevant if the statutory requirements were not met, and even if consent were assumed, it would not legitimize an unlawful search.

Because the search was unlawful, the police officers were not acting in the execution of their duty when assaulted, and therefore the assault convictions could not stand. The court also doubted the officers’ entitlement to infer consent or reasonable suspicion justifying the search or the assault.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and QUASHED BOTH CONVICTIONS.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant’s convictions for assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty are overturned due to the unlawfulness of the search. The court ordered that the lower court’s records be corrected accordingly and that the Appellant’s costs be reimbursed from central funds. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory duties to the facts of this case.