Taylor v Thames Valley Police

A person is sufficiently informed of the ground of arrest when, assessed objectively in all the circumstances, the person receives in simple, non-technical language the essential legal and factual grounds. The assessment includes the arrested person’s age and characteristics. Detailed particulars of the alleged conduct are unnecessary.

Police must justify detention throughout its duration. An unexplained delay in making an interview team available may render the resulting period of detention unlawful, even where the initial arrest was lawful.

A ten-year-old child was arrested during an anti-vivisection demonstration on suspicion of violent disorder at the same farm several weeks earlier. The arresting officer identified the offence, date and place, but did not specify that the child was suspected of throwing stones.

The Reading County Court held that the arrest contravened section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It also held that approximately one hour of later detention was unjustified because an interview team was unavailable. The Chief Constable appealed both findings.

The central issues were whether the information given on arrest was sufficient and whether the police had justified the whole period of detention.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The arrest was lawful, but the respondent was falsely imprisoned during approximately one hour of unexplained detention. The £1,500 award was set aside and was to be replaced by damages for that hour, with the amount to be agreed or assessed and approved because the respondent remained a minor.

2. Section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires an arrested person to be told the essential legal and factual grounds of arrest. The modern approach follows Fox, Campbell and Hartley v United Kingdom (1990) 13 EHRR 157: the information must be conveyed in simple, non-technical language which the person can understand. Its sufficiency is assessed objectively in all the circumstances. The arrested person’s age and characteristics form part of those circumstances, although actual subjective understanding is not decisive.

3. The county court had erred by asking whether the arresting officer and identifying officer had acted reasonably in exchanging information. The relevant question was whether the child had objectively been told enough. It did not depend upon whether the arresting officer knew further details which she might have communicated.

4. The words used identified violent disorder, the farm and the date. They therefore identified both the offence and the particular demonstration. No reasonable confusion could arise about the incident concerned. “Violent disorder” adequately described the alleged participation, and the police did not have to specify that the child was suspected of throwing stones. The information satisfied both section 28(3) and article 5(2) of the Convention.

5. The police bore the burden of justifying detention throughout its duration. Code C required persons in custody to be dealt with expeditiously and permitted delay only where it was justifiable and reasonable steps were taken to prevent unnecessary delay. The evidence supported the county court’s finding that the relevant hour was caused by the absence of an interview team. Because the police could not explain that delay, the Chief Constable had not discharged the burden of proving that detention lawful during that period.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2004] EWCA Civ 858, allowed the appeal against the finding that the arrest was unlawful, but upheld the finding of unlawful detention for approximately one hour. It set aside the £1,500 award and directed that damages be substituted for that period.

2. Reading County Court: His Honour Judge Catlin held that the arrest was unlawful under section 28(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that approximately one hour of detention was excessive. He awarded £1,500 in damages.