Samuels v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

A constable may stop and search a person under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 1, only where there are objectively reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person possesses a prohibited article. The officer’s actual suspicion is insufficient. General knowledge that an area has a high burglary rate, a person’s leisurely walking, looking back, or keeping his hands in his pockets will not, without more, establish reasonable grounds. A citizen is ordinarily entitled to decline to answer police questions, and an unhelpful response or walking away cannot convert an unreasonable suspicion into a reasonable one. Where the search is unlawful, resistance may be lawful and resulting arrest and detention may constitute assault and false imprisonment.

The plaintiff appealed from the dismissal by Judge Butter QC, sitting with a jury at the Central London County Court, of claims for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution arising from his detention and arrest by a police constable. The constable had stopped him and attempted to search him on suspicion that he possessed an article intended for use in burglary. The plaintiff resisted, was arrested and detained for about four hours, and was later acquitted of assaulting the officer. The central issue was whether the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the plaintiff possessed a prohibited article. A proposed new ground concerning the malicious prosecution direction was refused because it would have required an adjournment.

1. Appeal allowed. The plaintiff was entitled to judgment in respect of assault and false imprisonment. The court awarded £500 for the assaults and £1,000 for false imprisonment. Exemplary damages were refused.
2. Under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the constable bore the burden of showing reasonable suspicion. The existence of suspicion was not disputed, but whether it was reasonable was an objective question determined from the information available to the officer. The judge was responsible for ruling on the legal sufficiency of undisputed facts, while disputed facts ordinarily fell for the jury: Dollison v Coffery [1965] 1 QB 348.
3. The circumstances relied upon did not establish reasonable grounds. The plaintiff’s looking back, leisurely walking, the high-risk nature of the area, the officer’s statement about burglaries, and the possibility that the plaintiff carried a screwdriver added nothing sufficient. The fact that he had his hands in his pockets was likewise immaterial.
4. A citizen is not ordinarily under a legal duty to answer police questions. The court applied the principle stated in Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414, and reaffirmed in Collins v Wilcox [1984] 1 WLR 1172. The plaintiff’s response that it was a free country and his subsequent walking away therefore could not turn an unreasonable suspicion into a reasonable one.
5. Because the search was unlawful, the officer was not acting in the execution of his duty when he seized the plaintiff. The plaintiff was entitled to resist with reasonable force, and the arrest and detention were consequently unlawful. The appeal was decided on the existing grounds; the malicious prosecution challenge was not added.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Central London County Court allowed. The first-instance dismissal was set aside and judgment was entered for assault and false imprisonment.
• Central London County Court: Judge Butter QC, sitting with a jury, dismissed the claims on 4 March 1998.