Hough v Chief Constable of the Staffordshire Constabulary

Under section 24(6) of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the lawfulness of an arrest depends on the information in the arresting officer’s mind and whether it objectively provides reasonable grounds for suspicion. The officer need not prove that an informant had reasonable grounds or that the information was true.

An apparently responsible police national computer entry can provide sufficient justification. It will not invariably do so. The officer must assess its source and context in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, and further enquiry may be required where there is no urgency.

The Chief Constable appealed against a Chester County Court order awarding the claimant £10,000 damages, plus interest, for wrongful arrest, assault and false imprisonment. Armed officers had arrested and detained the claimant after a police national computer entry warned that an occupant of the vehicle might possess a firearm. No firearm was found.

The county court held that the Chief Constable had failed to prove reasonable grounds for the arrest because no evidence was given about the basis on which the computer entry had been made. The appeal concerned whether the objective reasonableness of the suspicion depended on the arresting officer’s information or on the grounds held by the officer who entered the information.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Simon Brown LJ delivered the judgment, with which Longmore LJ agreed. The county court order was set aside and the Chief Constable was awarded the costs of the appeal.

2. Section 24(6) of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 directs attention to the arresting officer. The relevant questions are what information was in that officer’s mind and whether, viewed objectively, it gave reasonable grounds for the officer’s genuine suspicion. It is unnecessary to prove what the officer’s informant knew or whether the information was true.

3. The principle in O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997] AC 286 extended beyond arrests made on a superior officer’s instruction. An arresting officer cannot be a mere conduit. A bare instruction to arrest is insufficient, but information supplied by another officer, an informer or a member of the public may furnish reasonable grounds.

4. An apparently responsible police national computer entry is capable of providing the necessary objective justification. The warning in this case supplied ample grounds for the arresting officer’s suspicion. The county court therefore erred by requiring evidence that the officer who made the entry had reasonable grounds.

5. A computer entry does not invariably justify arrest. Its source and context must be assessed in the light of all the surrounding circumstances. Where there is no urgency and further enquiry is clearly required before suspicion can properly crystallise, reliance on the entry alone will be insufficient.

6. Simon Brown LJ observed that a person harmed by an improperly created or retained computer entry might possibly have a negligence claim against the responsible officer. Clarke v Crew was said to provide some support, but no negligence claim had been advanced and the point was left for a future case.

7. The respondent’s reliance on article 5(1)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights did not justify examining the undisclosed basis of the computer entry. O’Hara had considered Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom (1990) 13 EHRR 157 and found no conflict in principle between the domestic and Strasbourg approaches.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The Chief Constable’s appeal was allowed unanimously. The county court order was set aside, with costs of the appeal.
2. Chester County Court: His Honour Judge G O Edwards QC gave judgment for the claimant for £10,000 damages and £600 interest for wrongful arrest, assault and false imprisonment. He held that the absence of evidence about the basis of the police national computer entry was fatal to the Chief Constable’s case.