Fiak, R v

A lawful arrest does not depend on an officer immediately using the word arrest. Where an officer already has grounds to arrest, a short and reasonable inquiry into the suspect’s explanation may form part of one continuous arrest process. The reasons for arrest must nevertheless be communicated as soon as reasonably practicable.

For criminal damage, temporary and remediable interference can amount to damage where it impairs property’s value or usefulness to its legitimate operator. Rendering a blanket and police cells unusable until they are dried or cleaned is damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

The appellant appealed against convictions at Snaresbrook Crown Court for criminal damage to a police-cell blanket and cell, and for assaulting a police officer with intent to avoid or prevent lawful apprehension or detention. He had been found intoxicated in the driver’s seat of his car. The police detained him while checking his assertion that he had not driven or been in charge of it. A struggle followed before he was formally told that he was under arrest.

At the police station, he placed a blanket in the lavatory and repeatedly flushed it, flooding his cell, adjoining cells and a passage. He contended that neither the police restraint nor the resulting wet blanket and cells gave rise to the charged offences. He also challenged the judge’s directions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that there was a proper case for the jury on both counts and that the directions did not render either conviction unsafe.

2. PC Smith had ample grounds under section 4(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to arrest the appellant. An arrest may occur when words or conduct place a person under the effective control of the arresting officer: Holgate-Mohammed v Duke [1984] AC 437. The appellant was arguably arrested when he was unequivocally told that he was detained and must remain where he was.

   In any event, the officer’s decision to check his account before formally completing the arrest was a sensible part of a single continuous process. It was not made unlawful by the temporary absence of the formal word arrest. The appellant knew why he was being detained, and the reasons for his arrest were expressly communicated as soon as reasonably practicable after the inquiry and ensuing struggle.

3. The court applied the approach in Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48 and R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25. Damage includes temporary impairment of the value or usefulness of property. The blanket could not be used by another prisoner until dried and cleaned. The flooded cells could not be used until cleared. Each therefore sustained damage, although the effects were remediable.

4. The judge’s direction effectively treated those uncontested consequences as damage. Although that issue would ordinarily be left to the jury, no rational conclusion on the evidence could have been otherwise. No evidential basis for a lawful excuse was advanced under section 5(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The court left open questions that might arise from unlawful detention in a police cell.

5. The court indicated that it would hear submissions on a representation order and prosecution costs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appellant’s appeal against both convictions.
• Snaresbrook Crown Court On 4 October 2004, convicted the appellant before HHJ Medawar QC and a jury of criminal damage and assaulting a police officer with intent to avoid or prevent lawful apprehension or detention; fines of £750 were imposed on each count.