Vince v Chief Constable of Dorset Police

Section 36(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires the appointment of one or more custody officers for each designated police station. It does not impose a further statutory duty to appoint enough custody officers to ensure that an appointed custody officer is ordinarily available at all times. The statutory construction must respect both the language and purpose of the provision.

An acting sergeant who has not attained the rank of sergeant under the applicable police regulations cannot be appointed as a custody officer under section 36(3). The court may grant declaratory relief to settle that issue where it has been fully argued and clarification serves the public interest.

The Police Federation brought proceedings against the Chief Constable of Dorset concerning the appointment and availability of custody officers under section 36 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The High Court declared that sufficient custody officers had to be appointed to ensure that at least one was normally available at each designated police station. It declined to declare that an acting sergeant could not lawfully be appointed as a custody officer. The Chief Constable appealed against the first declaration, and the Police Federation cross-appealed on the second issue.

1. Appeal allowed. Section 36(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was not capable of being construed as imposing a duty to appoint sufficient custody officers to ensure that custody-officer functions were ordinarily performed by duly appointed custody officers. The words required the appointment of one or more custody officers for each designated police station, but did not prescribe a staffing complement.
2. Per Lord Justice Steyn, statutory interpretation may take account of the purpose of the statute when determining the ordinary meaning of its language. Purpose is not invariably controlling; the language must remain capable of bearing the proposed construction. Although PACE sought to protect detained suspects through independent custody officers of at least sergeant rank, that purpose could not justify stretching section 36(1) beyond its language.
3. Section 36(4), permitting an officer of any rank to perform custody-officer functions where a custody officer is not readily available, did not determine the meaning of section 36(1). The provision was a concession to practicality and did not establish a statutory requirement that a sergeant be routinely available at every station.
4. Cross-appeal dismissed. An officer who merely acts up as a sergeant, without attaining that rank under the Police (Promotion) Regulations 1979, does not hold the rank of sergeant for section 36(3) and cannot be appointed as a custody officer.
5. The observation in R v Alladice was distinguishable and of no assistance because different statutory language was involved and the distinction between temporary and acting sergeants had not been addressed. A declaration was appropriate because the issue had arisen, had been fully argued, and clarification was in the wider public interest.
6. Lord Justice Fox agreed with the judgment and order. The appeal was allowed with costs, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal: Appeal allowed against the High Court declaration on the number of custody officers; cross-appeal dismissed on the availability of a declaration concerning acting sergeants.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Sir Peter Pain declared that sufficient custody officers had to be appointed so that one was normally available at each designated police station, but declined to make the requested declaration concerning acting sergeants: [1992] 1 WLR 47.