Faraj, R v

Where unlawfulness is an element of false imprisonment, a defendant may rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief. The defendant is assessed against the facts as believed. The unreasonableness of that belief is relevant only to whether it was genuinely held.

A householder who honestly believes that a person is a burglar may detain that person in defence of property, provided that detention is reasonably necessary and carried out reasonably. There is no free-standing power to detain beyond established legal limits. A jury must be directed separately on mistaken belief, citizen’s arrest and defence of property where those issues arise.

The appellant was convicted at Isleworth Crown Court of false imprisonment of an engineer who attended his home to repair a time switch. The Crown alleged that the appellant threatened the engineer with a knife and made him sit in a corner. The appellant denied any restraint, but said that he believed the engineer might be a burglar.

The trial judge directed the jury on citizen’s arrest and defence of property. The directions required reasonable grounds for suspecting burglary before considering the reasonableness of the response. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that the jury had not been directed on his honest, though potentially mistaken, belief.

1. Appeal allowed. The summing up was flawed in a way that rendered the conviction unsafe.

2. False imprisonment requires intentional and unlawful restraint. Where unlawfulness is in issue, an honestly held mistaken belief may provide legal justification. Following R v Gladstone Williams [1984] 78 CAR 276, a defendant must be judged on the facts as he genuinely believed them to be. An unreasonable belief may assist the jury in deciding whether it was genuinely held, but does not otherwise defeat the defence.

3. The appellant’s conduct, on the complainant’s account, amounted to an arrest: words or conduct which communicate compulsion, followed by submission to it, can constitute an arrest. The court did not resolve how an honest but unreasonable mistaken belief interacts with the statutory requirement of reasonable grounds for a citizen’s arrest under section 24 A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

4. The separate defence of property was sufficient to determine the appeal. A householder may detain a person whom he honestly believes to be a burglar. The householder must honestly believe that detention is needed and must act reasonably. Detention to establish identity would be unlikely to be unreasonable, but the reasonableness of using a knife was for the jury.

5. There is no separate unrestricted right to detain a suspected burglar. Freedom of movement may be restricted only within established legal limits. The judge wrongly treated reasonable grounds for suspicion as a prerequisite to defence of property, and omitted an adequate direction on honest mistaken belief. On any retrial, if such a defence is left to the jury, directions should be confined to defence of property.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against conviction in [2007] EWCA Crim 1033 because the jury directions made the conviction unsafe.
• Isleworth Crown Court: convicted the appellant of false imprisonment on 21 August 2006, imposed a suspended sentence, and ordered compensation and costs.