Clements v Director of Public Prosecutions

For an officer to be acting in the execution of his duty, the question is whether the circumstances gave him reasonable grounds to apprehend that an arrestable offence might be committed. The assessment must take account of the whole situation, including the nature of the demonstration, the location, the group’s deliberate departure from the prescribed route, its approach towards a protected perimeter and an individual’s refusal to comply with a request to return. The evidence need not establish that the particular individual was certain to commit the offence. A conclusion is sufficient if it falls within the range of results reasonably open to the magistrates.

The appellant was convicted by Harrogate Magistrates’ Court of assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. He had taken part in a protest march, left the prescribed route with others and approached the perimeter fence of an RAF base. When a police sergeant attempted to turn him away, he deliberately knocked off the sergeant’s helmet.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated. The central issue was whether there was evidence that the sergeant reasonably apprehended that criminal damage or another arrestable offence might be committed, so that he was acting in the execution of his duty.

1. Appeal dismissed. All four questions posed by the magistrates’ case stated were answered in the affirmative.
2. The relevant issue was whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the police sergeant was acting in the execution of his duty. The officer was entitled to assess the whole situation rather than focus only on the appellant’s age, sex or possession of a rucksack.
3. The circumstances included an anti-war demonstration at the perimeter of an RAF base; a group of 12 to 20 people deliberately leaving the prescribed route; crossing a ditch and approaching the fence; and the appellant refusing to return when asked. It was clearly reasonable to fear that the fence might be damaged by the group, or by some of its members including the appellant.
4. The magistrates’ conclusion was well within the range of results open to them on the evidence. The arguments on self-defence and defence of another were properly rejected and were not pursued on appeal.
5. The respondent was awarded £300 costs, payable at £100 per month.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal by way of case stated from the appellant’s conviction at Harrogate Magistrates’ Court was dismissed. The court answered all four questions in the affirmative.