Archer v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the lawfulness of the police detention of a juvenile under section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) for his own protection or in his own interests. The juvenile, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant, was arrested on suspicion of violent disorder and possession of an offensive weapon following a violent attack in The City. The Appellant was detained overnight and refused bail on grounds including his own protection, with concerns about gang-related reprisals. The detention lasted approximately 13 hours before he was brought before the Youth Court and remanded to secure accommodation. The criminal proceedings against the Appellant were discontinued at trial, and subsequent attacks on him led to relocation for his safety.

The Appellant brought a claim against the police (the Respondent) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), originally including allegations of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, negligence, human rights breaches, and race discrimination. The claim against the CPS was discontinued following a Supreme Court decision. The Appellant amended his claim to seek a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, focusing on the compatibility of PACE s. 38 detention powers with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

The case was heard without oral evidence, relying on contemporaneous records and witness statements. The primary legal issue concerns whether detention for "own protection" under PACE s. 38 is compatible with Article 5 of the Convention.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether detention of a person for their own protection pursuant to sections 38(1)(a)(vi) and 38(1)(b)(ii) of PACE is compatible with Article 5(1)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether the Appellant’s detention on 22-23 February 2012 was lawful and compatible with his rights under Article 5.
3. Whether, if detention for own protection is compatible with Article 5(1)(c), the specific detention of the Appellant was justified on the facts.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Article 5(1) exceptions are exhaustive and must be narrowly interpreted; detention for own protection is not a listed ground and thus incompatible with Article 5.
• Detention for own protection cannot be justified by the purpose of bringing the person before a competent legal authority; this purpose must be the actual reason for detention.
• Previous Strasbourg cases (IA and Buzadji) only address the reasonableness of the length of detention, not the lawfulness of detention for own protection.
• The Judge erred in adopting a flexible interpretation that permits detention for own protection, effectively reading a new ground into Article 5(1)(c).
• Detention of juveniles must be a measure of last resort under international law, which was not properly considered.
• On the facts, the detention was not justified as exceptional circumstances or as a last resort; no reasonable alternative protective measures were considered.

Respondent's Arguments

• Detention for own protection is a legitimate justification when combined with a reasonable suspicion of an offence and the purpose of bringing the person before a competent legal authority.
• The distinction between detention for own protection and detention for bringing before court is artificial; the latter purpose subsumes the former.
• Article 5 must be interpreted flexibly to allow police to perform their duties without arbitrary detention.
• Strasbourg jurisprudence (including Lawless, Buzadji, and S v Denmark) supports a flexible approach allowing short-term detention for own protection.
• The Appellant’s detention was lawful, promptly reviewed, and justified by exceptional circumstances including gang violence risk.
• Alternatives to detention were not reasonably available given the short overnight period and lack of secure local authority accommodation for juveniles.
• Detention complied with procedural safeguards and was not arbitrary.
• The fact that the detainee was a juvenile does not alter the compatibility of detention with Article 5, provided international and domestic safeguards are respected.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the central legal question: whether detention for own protection under PACE s. 38 is compatible with Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention. It accepted that the list of exceptions in Article 5(1) is exhaustive and to be narrowly construed. However, the court rejected the Appellant's argument that detention for own protection is inherently incompatible with Article 5(1)(c), reasoning that the purpose requirement ("effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority") must be interpreted flexibly.

The court relied on Strasbourg jurisprudence, particularly the Grand Chamber decision in S v Denmark, which permits a flexible application of the purpose requirement, especially in short-term preventive detention cases. It noted that detention for own protection could be a "relevant and sufficient" reason for continued detention when combined with reasonable suspicion of an offence and the intention to bring the detainee promptly before a court.

The court identified three key limitations on detention for own protection derived from IA and S v Denmark: (i) it must be for a short period, (ii) only in exceptional circumstances related to the nature and context of the offences, and (iii) only if no reasonable alternatives to detention are available. These limitations safeguard against arbitrary detention and ensure compliance with Article 5.

On the facts, the court found the Appellant's detention was lawful and compatible with Article 5. The detention was brief (overnight), the circumstances were exceptional due to gang-related violence and risk of serious injury, and alternative protective measures were not realistically available within the short timeframe. The court also noted the detention was reviewed promptly and the Appellant was kept separate from adults.

The court rejected the Appellant's contention that the detention was arbitrary or unlawful, emphasizing the necessity of balancing individual rights with police duties in maintaining public order and protection. It also recognized the additional protections for juveniles under international and domestic law, which were observed in this case.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The holding confirms that detention of a person, including a juvenile, for their own protection under PACE s. 38(1)(a)(vi) and (b)(ii) is compatible with Article 5(1)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, provided the detention is short, in exceptional circumstances, and no reasonable alternatives exist. The decision clarifies the flexible interpretation of the "purpose" requirement in Article 5(1)(c), particularly in the context of preventive detention and the protection of vulnerable detainees.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s detention was lawful and did not breach Article 5. No new precedent altering the fundamental principles of Article 5 was established; rather, the judgment affirms existing Strasbourg and domestic case law regarding detention for own protection and the treatment of juveniles in custody.