Shackleton v Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary

Section 103(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits a constable to arrest a person suspected of disqualified driving after the vehicle has stopped, provided the arrest forms part of a continuous process beginning when the person was observed driving. The events must remain sufficiently connected to constitute a single transaction. Stopping the vehicle, leaving it and moving away do not themselves break continuity. The relevant question is whether the person was in fact driving and whether the officer had the necessary suspicion while the driving was occurring. The Court left unresolved whether an honest but mistaken belief as to the driver's identity could itself justify arrest.

The claimant brought proceedings for assault and false imprisonment arising from his arrest for allegedly driving while disqualified. On a preliminary issue, the Preston County Court assumed the police officer’s account and held that the arrest was lawful. The claimant appealed.

The issue was whether section 103(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 required both the suspicion and the arrest to occur while the person was still driving, or whether an arrest after the vehicle had stopped could be lawful where there was a continuous pursuit. The Court of Appeal also considered, but did not decide, whether the arrested person had to be the actual driver.

1. Appeal dismissed. The arrest was lawful on the assumed facts.
2. Section 103(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 uses driving as a description of the conduct giving rise to the power of arrest. It does not impose a requirement that the arrest occur before the vehicle stops or before the driver leaves it.
3. The rule of fresh pursuit applies. An officer may arrest a person observed driving whom the officer has reasonable cause to suspect of being disqualified, provided the arrest forms part of a continuous process from the driving onwards. The driving, pursuit and arrest must remain capable of being regarded as one transaction.
4. The Court relied on R v Jones (EJM), Sasson v Taverner and R v Sakhuja. Those authorities established that stopping the vehicle, getting out and moving away would not, without more, break the chain of continuity.
5. On the police officer’s account, she saw the claimant driving, checked his disqualification, followed him and arrested him shortly afterwards. That was one continuous chain of events.
6. The Court declined to decide whether an arrest is lawful where the officer honestly believes that the person arrested was the driver but that person was not in fact driving. Lord Justice Kay and Lord Justice May indicated that the statutory wording appeared to require actual driving.
7. Lord Justice May observed that short factual issues should ordinarily be determined before an appeal on a preliminary point of law, since the facts may make the legal issue irrelevant or place it in a different context. Lord Justice Ward agreed.

Order: appeal dismissed, with costs not to be enforced except by way of set-off or otherwise without permission of the court below.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Townend, sitting at Preston County Court, dated 18 December 2000. Appeal dismissed.