McGrath v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Another

A statutory power permitting execution in one United Kingdom jurisdiction of an arrest warrant issued in another applies according to the warrant’s apparent character and terms. The words “for the arrest of a person charged with an offence” in section 38(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 identify the relevant kind of warrant. They do not require the executing officer to verify that the named person was the individual who actually appeared before the issuing court.

A constable may rely on a valid warrant’s face and must execute its clear instruction. An arrest conforming to a warrant that mistakenly names an innocent person is lawful while the warrant remains valid and unrecalled. The officer may not instead arrest an unnamed person whom the issuing court intended to apprehend.

A man charged and convicted in Scotland had used the respondent’s name, address and date of birth. When he failed to appear for sentence, a sheriff issued a valid warrant in that name. An officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary subsequently arrested the respondent in Northern Ireland because his details precisely matched those stated in the warrant. The mistake was discovered after his transfer to Scottish police officers.

The respondent claimed damages from the Chief Constables of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary for wrongful arrest. MacDermott LJ gave judgment for the defendants at first instance. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, [2000] NI 56, reversed that decision and awarded damages.

The central issue before the House was whether section 38(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 authorised the Northern Irish execution of the Scottish warrant when the respondent had not been the person who appeared before the sheriff.

1. The appeal was allowed unanimously and the first-instance judgment for the defendants was restored. Lord Clyde delivered the leading speech. Lord Hutton gave concurring reasons. Lord Steyn and Lord Cooke agreed with both speeches, while Lord Browne-Wilkinson agreed with Lord Clyde.

2. Per Lord Clyde, section 38(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 enabled a warrant validly issued in Scotland to be executed in Northern Ireland. The phrase “for the arrest of a person charged with an offence” described the relevant class of warrant, namely a warrant of arrest. It did not impose a further requirement that the person named had in fact appeared before the issuing court and been charged. The section’s purpose was to facilitate enforcement across United Kingdom jurisdictions without endorsement.

3. The warrant was a valid judicial order for the respondent’s arrest on its face, although the sheriff had intended to secure the return of the impostor. Its validity continued unless recalled or cancelled. The constables acted lawfully by executing its express terms. A ministerial officer may rely upon a clear warrant and has no obligation to investigate whether the issuing court intended to name another person. By contrast, arresting the impostor, who was not named, would have been unlawful.

4. Lord Clyde added that, even on the Court of Appeal’s construction, the respondent had mistakenly been charged because the indictment was issued in his name. This provided an alternative basis for treating him as a person charged with an offence, although Lord Clyde preferred the construction based on the kind of warrant.

5. Lord Hutton reached the same conclusion by construing the statute against its common-law background. The common law required arrest warrants to identify precisely the person to be arrested and required executing officers to follow their terms without substituting their own assessment of the issuing court’s intention. This principle protected both the person subject to the warrant and the officer performing the ministerial act of execution.

6. The decision in R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, Ex p Evans (No 2) [2000] 3 WLR 843 did not determine the appeal. That case concerned detention prolonged by a legal error in calculating a release date. The present case concerned a factual mistake in the identity stated in a valid judicial warrant.

1. House of Lords: Allowed the Chief Constables’ appeal unanimously and restored the first-instance judgment for the defendants: [2001] UKHL 39.
2. Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland: Allowed the respondent’s appeal from MacDermott LJ and awarded damages against both defendants: [2000] NI 56.
3. High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland: MacDermott LJ heard the evidence and gave judgment for the defendants.