Bristol, R. v

Where a constable exercises a search power to which section 2 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applies, the statutory safeguards must be performed before the search begins. The constable must take reasonable steps to give the prescribed information, including the constable’s name and police station.

The requirement is not satisfied by treating compliance as optional in the circumstances. In the absence of evidence that the required words could not be said, a perceived risk that suspected drugs may be swallowed does not justify omitting them. A search begun without compliance is unlawful and cannot support a conviction for intentional obstruction under section 23(4)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

A police constable approached the appellant in a street known for drug dealing after believing, on seeing an item in the appellant’s mouth, that it was a wrap of drugs. The constable immediately applied mandibular pressure and told him to spit it out. He did not give his name or police station before doing so. No drugs were found.

At Southwark Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of intentionally obstructing a constable contrary to section 23(4)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. The Recorder left it to the jury whether the officer had taken reasonable steps under section 2 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The appeal concerned whether the failure to provide the prescribed identification before the search made the search unlawful and therefore left no case to answer.

1. The appeal against conviction was allowed. The conviction was quashed because the search was unlawful, so the appellant could not be convicted of intentionally obstructing a constable in the exercise of the section 23 power.
2. The officer had reasonable grounds to suspect possession of a controlled drug and could therefore invoke the search power in section 23(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Its exercise was nevertheless governed by section 2(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That provision required the officer, before commencing the search, to take reasonable steps to bring the prescribed matters to the appellant’s attention, including the officer’s name and police station.
3. Osman v the Southwark Crown Court 163 JPR 725 confirmed the consequence of non-compliance. The statutory language was clear. The requirement was not merely to do what was reasonable overall in an urgent situation; Parliament had specified minimum steps which had to be taken before the search began.
4. There was no evidence that the officer gave, or could not have given, the words identifying himself as “Mansson” and his station as “Charing Cross” before saying that it was a drugs search and directing the appellant to spit out the item. The Recorder therefore should have ruled that there was no case to answer rather than leaving the issue to the jury.
5. The court added, obiter, that even if urgency had made those words impracticable, the statutory scheme did not appear to permit their omission. Any alteration to that result was for Parliament. The court shared the practical sympathy expressed in Bonner v the DPP [2004] EWCH 2415 Admin, but applied the statutory safeguards as enacted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against conviction and quashed the conviction ([2007] EWCA Crim 3214).
• Crown Court at Southwark On 17 December 2006, convicted the appellant of intentionally obstructing a constable contrary to section 23(4)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and imposed 12 months’ imprisonment.