Williamson v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police

A breach of the peace is not an offence for the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Arrest and detention for an actual or threatened breach of the peace remain governed by the common law. The Convention’s autonomous classification of breach of the peace as an offence does not determine the meaning of domestic legislation.

Continued detention becomes unlawful when the police ought reasonably to conclude that there is no real danger of a further breach within a short time and that a bind-over is unnecessary. If a real danger remains, the detainee must be brought before a magistrates’ court as soon as reasonably practicable. Although appropriate PACE safeguards may represent good police practice, statutory powers unavailable at common law, including police bail, cannot thereby be exercised.

The claimant was lawfully arrested at home for an ongoing or threatened breach of the peace after brandishing a kitchen knife during an argument. The police detained him overnight because they believed that, once they had decided to seek a bind-over, they lacked power to release him before his appearance before the magistrates. The magistrates made no order.

His Honour Judge McKenna held that the arrest was lawful but that detention became unlawful by 6 pm. He construed “offence” in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as including breach of the peace in light of the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission to appeal was confined to that construction; the factual finding that any real prospect of repetition had ended by 6 pm could not be challenged.

The central issue was whether PACE applies to arrest and detention for breach of the peace.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Dyson held that the word “offence” in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not include breach of the peace. Lord Justice Mummery agreed without qualification.

2. Domestic law does not classify breach of the peace as a criminal offence. A person arrested for it is not charged, and a finding that it occurred produces no conviction. Bind-over proceedings are preventative. Their possible classification as a criminal cause or matter, and the application of the criminal standard of proof, do not convert breach of the peace into an offence.

3. The structure of PACE confirms that conclusion. Section 17(6) expressly preserves the common-law power of entry to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace, while section 25(6) preserves powers of arrest arising outside PACE. Part IV concerns people arrested for an offence. Section 39(1), read in that context, does not extend the Part to breach-of-the-peace detainees. Section 47 and the Bail Act 1976 provide no power to grant police bail in such cases.

4. The autonomous meaning of “offence” in article 5(1)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not control its meaning in PACE. The events pre-dated the Human Rights Act 1998. In any event, the common-law rules were compatible with article 5, so no extended construction was required.

5. At common law, continued detention is unlawful once the police consider, or ought reasonably to consider, that there is no real rather than fanciful danger of a further breach within a short time and that a bind-over is unnecessary. If a real danger remains, detention becomes unlawful unless the detainee is taken before the magistrates as soon as reasonably practicable.

6. The county court’s statutory reasoning was wrong, but its result was sustainable at common law. Its unappealable finding established that detention should have ended by 6 pm. The Chief Constable was entitled to a declaration reflecting the Court of Appeal’s ruling on PACE. There was no order as to the costs of the appeal, and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2003] EWCA Civ 337, unanimously dismissed the Chief Constable’s limited appeal. It rejected the county court’s construction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but upheld the result under common-law principles.
2. Birmingham County Court: His Honour Judge McKenna held the arrest lawful but found that detention became unlawful by 6 pm. He had construed “offence” in PACE as including breach of the peace in light of the European Convention on Human Rights. No citation is stated.