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

The common law power to arrest to prevent an anticipated breach of the peace depends on an objectively reasonable belief that a breach may occur in the immediate future. Immediacy and imminence are context-sensitive. In domestic violence cases, the court may consider the risk of violence later that night while the parties remain together in the home. Relevant circumstances include the occupants’ expressed fear, supporting observations, the arrested person’s conduct towards the police, intoxication and the continuing opportunity for violence. Where those matters objectively establish the necessary risk, the arrest is lawful and the officers act in the execution of their duty.

The appellant was convicted by magistrates of two offences contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996, fined and ordered to pay compensation. The Crown Court dismissed his appeal, subject to reducing one compensation award, and stated a case for the High Court.

Police officers had attended the appellant’s home after a heated domestic argument. Although no violence, threats or damage had occurred, the occupants expressed fear that violence would follow if the appellant remained. The officers arrested him to prevent a breach of the peace when he refused to leave. The central issue was whether the Crown Court was entitled to find that the anticipated breach was imminent, that the arrest was lawful and that the officers were acting in the execution of their duty.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Case Stated questions were answered yes: the Crown Court was entitled to find that the police reasonably believed a breach of the peace could occur in the immediate future, that the arrest was lawful and that the officers were acting in the execution of their duty.

2. The governing approach was objective. The court had to assess, without hindsight, whether the circumstances reasonably supported a belief that a breach of the peace was imminent. The references in the authorities to immediacy or imminence required some caution because they commonly arose in public street situations, where the parties could separate.

3. In a domestic setting, the relevant question was whether leaving the person in the home after midnight created a real risk of violence while he remained there. The court was entitled to consider the occupant’s belief that violence might occur, the supporting concerns of her son and daughter, and the appellant’s refusal to respond to reasonable police requests. The finding that his silence was intimidating was highly material.

4. The appellant’s intoxication and failure to provide reassurance did not by themselves determine the issue, but formed part of the circumstances which the police and the Crown Court could evaluate. The possibility that an argument might restart and result in assault that night was sufficient to support the conclusion reached.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): On a Case Stated appeal, the court upheld the Crown Court’s conclusion that the arrest was lawful and dismissed the appeal.

2. Crown Court at Hull: Dismissed the appeal against conviction, but reduced one compensation award from £100 to £25.

3. Beverley Magistrates: Convicted the appellant of two offences contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996 and imposed fines and compensation.