Saliu, R (on the application of) v Department of Public Prosecutions

For an assault on a police officer to be in the execution of the officer’s duty, the assault must be assessed by reference to the circumstances when it occurred. An arrest occurring afterwards does not retrospectively remove that character. Where an accused is arrested during a violent struggle, the question under section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is whether it was reasonably practicable to inform him of the reasons for arrest before he was informed. An appellate court should be slow to interfere where magistrates addressed the correct legal test and reached a conclusion reasonably open to them.

The claimant appealed by way of Case Stated against his conviction by lay magistrates for recklessly assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. He had been involved in a violent incident attended by several police officers. The magistrates found that the assault occurred during the struggle to restrain him and that his arrest took place thereafter, when he was placed in a police vehicle. They also found that it had not been practicable to explain the reasons for arrest earlier, and that he was informed in the police van. The central questions were whether section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 affected the conviction and whether the conviction was justified.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Both questions stated for the opinion of the High Court were answered affirmatively.
2. On the primary account of the facts, the appellant assaulted PC Blacker during an altercation before the arrest took place. The officer was therefore acting in the execution of his duty. The subsequent arrest did not retrospectively alter the character of the assault.
3. Even on the alternative account that the attempt to restrain or arrest the appellant began as he moved towards the ambulance, the magistrates were entitled to find that an immediate altercation followed and that the appellant was not effectively arrested until he was handcuffed and placed in the police vehicle. It was not unreasonable or perverse to conclude that, during the struggle, it was not reasonably practicable to inform him of the reasons for his detention.
4. The magistrates had applied the correct question under section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: whether it was reasonably practicable to inform the appellant of the reasons for his arrest before he was in fact informed. Where magistrates address the correct legal test, the High Court will be slow to conclude that no reasonable bench could have reached their conclusion.
5. The conviction for assaulting PC Blacker was consistent with the acquittal on the separate charge concerning Sergeant Ferguson, because the magistrates accepted that the contact with Sergeant Ferguson might have been accidental.

The claimant appealed by way of Case Stated from his conviction by lay magistrates. The judgment does not give a citation for the magistrates’ decision.