Jarrett v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

For an arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, reasonable suspicion requires both a genuine suspicion in the arresting officer’s mind and objectively reasonable grounds for it. The assessment must consider all the circumstances, including information received and the officer’s own observations. It requires suspicion, not prima facie proof or positive belief. An attempt to knock an object from a complainant’s hand may support reasonable suspicion of common assault, including by causing fear of imminent force. Mere agitation, unthreatening words and waving bags, without threatened or apprehended violence or public alarm, do not amount to a breach of the peace. Appeal allowed.

The claimant brought actions for assault and false imprisonment after her arrest by a police sergeant following an incident involving a traffic warden. The police relied on section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, alleging reasonable suspicion of common assault and breach of the peace, together with the claimant’s failure to provide a satisfactory address.

At trial, His Honour Judge Durman, taking the police evidence at its highest, ruled that the arrest lacked reasonable cause and gave judgment for the claimant in agreed damages of £6,000. The Chief Constable appealed, raising whether the evidence could establish reasonable suspicion of assault and whether the claimant’s conduct amounted to a breach of the peace.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge was entitled to conclude that the evidence did not establish a breach of the peace or an apprehended breach of the peace. Under the definition adopted in R v Howell [1981] 73 Crim.App.R 31, harm or threatened harm, or fear of such harm, is required. Mere agitation, unthreatening words and waving bags, without evidence of threatened violence, imminent violence or public alarm, were insufficient.
2. The claimant accepted that the general arrest conditions in section 25(3)(a)–(c) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were satisfied. The decisive question under section 25(1) was therefore whether the officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an assault had been committed or attempted.
3. Following O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997] AC 286, reasonable suspicion has subjective and objective elements. The officer must genuinely suspect that the person has committed an offence, and there must be objectively reasonable grounds for that suspicion. Information received from another person may provide such grounds even if it later proves false, provided that a reasonable person would regard it as reasonable in all the circumstances.
4. Where a judge determines the issue on the evidence taken at its highest, the judge must focus on the officer’s state of mind at the time of arrest and assess the matter broadly. The assessment must include both what the officer was told and what the officer personally observed. It is not confined to whether the reported facts conclusively establish every element of the suspected offence.
5. Criminal assault may consist of unlawful application of force, described as battery, or causing the victim to fear an imminent application of force, as explained in R v Ireland, R v Burstow [1998] AC 147. On the assumed evidence, the visibly shaken traffic warden’s complaint, together with the claimant’s agitated response and failure to deny the allegation, gave the officer reasonable grounds to suspect assault in either form.
6. The required standard was suspicion only. It fell well short of prima facie proof and did not require positive belief, as illustrated by Hussein v Choung Fook Kam [1970] AC 942 and Parker v Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary. The judge was wrong to hold that the officer could not reasonably suspect assault on the assumed evidence.

Lord Justice Chadwick and Mrs Justice Black agreed with Lord Justice Potter. Order: appeal allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 February 2003, the appeal was allowed. Lord Justice Potter gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Chadwick and Mrs Justice Black agreeing.
• Stourbridge County Court: On 17 July 2002, His Honour Judge Durman, sitting with a jury, ruled that the police evidence taken at its highest did not establish reasonable cause for the arrest and gave judgment for the claimant in agreed damages of £6,000.