Olden, R. v

A warrantless arrest under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires the arresting constable personally to suspect that the person committed an arrestable offence and to have reasonable grounds for that suspicion. An instruction from another officer and information supplied at a briefing cannot alone establish the constable’s subjective suspicion. Where the evidence does not support a reasoned finding that the officer formed that suspicion, the arrest is unlawful. Convictions may require quashing where evidence obtained through the resulting interview and searches was of considerable importance to the prosecution case.

The appellant was convicted at Cardiff Crown Court of offences of obtaining property, money transfers and banking services by deception. The prosecution alleged that he used false identities and supporting documents to obtain loans, mortgages, transfers and bank accounts after his bankruptcy.

He appealed against conviction and sentence. The principal ground challenged the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest for suspected mortgage fraud. He contended that the arresting constable acted only on instructions and had neither formed his own suspicion nor had reasonable grounds for it. Further grounds concerned proof that the deceptions induced the lenders’ decisions and restrictions on questions about lending policies.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the convictions. The interview and searches following the arrest produced evidence of considerable importance, so the unlawfulness of the arrest required the appeal to succeed.

2. Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 required PC Lodwig himself to suspect that the appellant had committed an arrestable offence and to have reasonable grounds for that suspicion. O'Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997] 1 Cr App R 447 established that an arresting officer cannot be a mere conduit for a superior’s instruction. The court also derived assistance from Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police [2001] EWCA Civ 39.

3. The trial judge concentrated on whether sufficient information had been communicated at the briefing. He did not make a reasoned finding that PC Lodwig had actually formed the required suspicion. The officer did not say that he suspected or believed that the appellant had committed the frauds. The information given and the officer’s conscientiousness were equally consistent with his acting solely on orders. The arrest was therefore unlawful.

4. Had PC Lodwig formed the subjective suspicion, the court would have held that he had reasonable grounds for it. It was permissible to infer that the investigating officer’s essential information about multiple frauds using false identities had been passed through the briefing. The absence of evidence from the two officers who conducted the information chain was nevertheless unsatisfactory.

5. The court rejected the remaining substantive grounds. Inducement by a false representation need not be proved by direct evidence from the individual lender. A jury may draw an irresistible inference from all the evidence, even though direct evidence might in principle have been available. On the evidence, there was a strong case that knowledge of false identities, bankruptcy and false application details would have affected lending decisions. The defence had not in fact been prejudiced by the ruling about documentary lending policies.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against conviction allowed; convictions quashed in [2007] EWCA Crim 726.
• Cardiff Crown Court: convicted on 7 and 8 February 2006 and sentenced on 4 April 2006.