Pegram v Director of Public Prosecutions

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from the upholding by the Crown Court at Bristol of the Appellant's conviction for assaulting a police officer, PC Millett, while the officer was acting in the execution of his duty. The Appellant was initially convicted at the Bristol Magistrates' Court on 22 February 2018. The Crown Court dismissed the appeal against conviction on 25 May 2018. The Appellant sought a case stated for the opinion of a higher court, which was initially refused by the Crown Court recorder. This refusal was quashed by judicial review, and the case was remitted for the Crown Court to state a case raising three specific legal questions for this court's determination.

On 10 September 2017, two opposing demonstrations took place in Bristol. The Appellant participated in one group and came into contact with PC Millett, who took hold of the Appellant's arm to attract his attention and issue a warning about a potential Public Order Act offence. The Appellant reacted by swinging his arm and making contact with PC Millett's face, leading to his arrest and charge for assaulting an officer in the execution of duty. The Crown Court preferred the officer's evidence and found the Appellant guilty, rejecting any claim of self-defence and declining to give a good character direction. The current appeal concerns three legal questions arising from these facts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, on the facts found in the Crown Court, PC Millett was acting in the execution of his duty when taking hold of the Appellant;
2. Whether, upon the evidence before the Crown Court, a prima facie case of self-defence was raised and, if so, whether the Crown Court erred in law (a) by not considering self-defence or (b) by dismissing the appeal;
3. Whether the approach adopted in the Crown Court transcript at page 80E-F constituted or involved a misdirection of law as to character.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• PC Millett's conduct went beyond merely attracting attention and amounted to physical restraint, constituting a technical assault.
• The officer's grip on the Appellant's arm was sufficiently strong and lasted long enough to be considered restraint rather than a brief contact.
• The duration and firmness of the grip crossed the line from acceptable physical contact to unlawful restraint.
• There is a legal distinction between conduct intended to attract attention and conduct intended to maintain attention by preventing escape, with the latter being unlawful.
• A prima facie case of self-defence was raised based on the evidence that the Appellant swung his arm to free himself from the grip.
• The Crown Court erred by not considering self-defence properly and by dismissing the appeal without adequate consideration.
• The Crown Court misdirected itself on the issue of character by failing to give a good character direction, which would have assisted on credibility and propensity.

Respondent's Arguments

• The context of the incident, including the commotion and public alarm, justified a higher degree of physical contact to attract and maintain the Appellant's attention.
• The grip was brief—a "split second"—and was aimed at ensuring the Appellant listened to a lawful warning about a public order offence.
• The officer's conduct was within generally acceptable standards of everyday life, especially given the circumstances.
• There was no error in the Crown Court's rejection of self-defence as the evidence did not support it.
• The Crown Court's approach to character was appropriate; treating the character evidence as neutral was a permissible exercise of judicial discretion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed each of the three questions sequentially. First, it considered whether PC Millett was acting in the execution of his duty when he took hold of the Appellant's arm. The court acknowledged the borderline nature of the facts but emphasized the importance of context, including the tense atmosphere and the need to deliver a lawful warning. Although the grip lasted longer than a mere fleeting moment, the court found it was open to the Crown Court to conclude that the officer was acting within his duty and that the contact was lawful and necessary to secure the Appellant's attention.

Second, the court examined whether a prima facie case of self-defence was raised. It found that the Appellant expressly disavowed self-defence and that the evidence, including the officer's testimony, did not support a defence beyond an attempt to free himself from the lawful grip. Since the grip was lawful, there was no unlawful act against which the Appellant could defend himself. The court found no error in the Crown Court's rejection of self-defence.

Third, the court reviewed the Crown Court’s approach to character evidence. It noted the Appellant was not of absolute good character and that the prior convictions were old and mainly drug-related. The court held that the Crown Court was entitled to treat character evidence neutrally and to decide that no good character direction was necessary. There was no misdirection or unfairness in this approach given the direct evidence from the key witnesses.

Holding and Implications

The court's answers to the three legal questions were, respectively, yes, no, and no. Accordingly, the appeal was DISMISSED.

The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation of the Appellant's conviction for assaulting a police officer acting in the execution of duty. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts. The case reinforces the principle that brief physical contact by police officers to attract and maintain attention during lawful duties may be lawful, and that self-defence is not available when the officer’s conduct is lawful. It also confirms the permissibility of treating character evidence neutrally where appropriate.