Bucher, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

A custody sergeant may require obstructive or abusive persons to leave a police custody suite where their conduct prevents the station from operating effectively. The officer acts in the execution of his duty when removing them, provided that any force used is reasonable in all the circumstances. Gently guiding an unwilling person towards the exit with minimal force is not a detention. Authorities concerning the detention of members of the public outside police stations are distinguishable.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against her conviction by Hereford Magistrates' Court for assaulting a police sergeant in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. The claimant had struggled while her mother was being escorted from a police custody suite after both had behaved abusively and disrupted the custody sergeant's work.

The magistrates found that the sergeant was acting in the execution of his duty and that the force used to guide the mother towards the exit was trivial. They posed questions concerning whether the officer was acting in the execution of his duty and whether anything he did caused him to cease doing so.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates' answers to both questions were upheld.
2. A custody sergeant is entitled to remove persons who are obstructive or abusive from a custody suite in order to maintain the operation and effectiveness of the police station. In doing so, the sergeant acts in the execution of his duty as a constable, provided that any force used is reasonable in all the circumstances.
3. The sergeant was not attempting to arrest or detain the claimant's mother, or to prevent a breach of the peace. He was entitled to ask her to leave after her disruptive conduct and, when she did not leave voluntarily, to use minimal force by placing his arm on hers and guiding her towards the exit.
4. On the facts found, that conduct could not sensibly be described as detention. Escorting an unwilling person to a cell may amount to detention, whereas gently guiding a person towards the exit does not.
5. The authorities relied on by the claimant—Donelly v Jackman, (1970) 1 All ER 987; Rice v Connolly, (1966) 2 All ER 651; Bentley v Brudzinski, 75 Cr App R 217; and Ludlow v Burgess, 75 Cr App R 227—were distinguishable because they concerned attempts to detain members of the public, however briefly, outside police stations.
6. The sergeant's actions therefore remained within the execution of his duty, and the claimant's assault conviction stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated from Hereford Magistrates' Court was dismissed.
• Hereford Magistrates' Court: The claimant was convicted under section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996 and received a conditional discharge, with compensation ordered.