B v Director of Public Prosecutions

A plain-clothes constable conducting a statutory search must take reasonable steps, before starting it, to bring documentary evidence of his status to the attention of the person searched. Giving the constable’s name and station does not discharge that separate duty. A search carried out without compliance with these statutory preconditions is unlawful, even if the constable is known to the person searched. Resistance to an unlawful search may constitute lawful use of reasonable force and cannot found obstruction of a constable acting in the execution of his duty. However, excessive force or threats may still support an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.

B, a minor, was convicted by the West London Youth Court of obstructing a police constable and using threatening or abusive words or behaviour. The convictions arose from his resistance to a search conducted by a plain-clothes constable under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The constable gave his name and police station but did not produce a warrant card or other documentary evidence of his status.

The justices concluded that the search was lawful and stated a case for the opinion of the High Court. The central questions were whether reasonable steps had been taken under section 2(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, whether the search was consequently lawful, and whether the public order conviction could stand.

1. The appeal was allowed. The conviction for obstruction was quashed and an acquittal substituted. The public order conviction was quashed and remitted to the justices for further consideration.
2. Section 2(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 imposes a mandatory precondition to a search. A plain-clothes constable must take reasonable steps before commencing the search to bring documentary evidence of being a constable to the attention of the appropriate person. The constable need not produce the warrant card in every case if the evidence shows that reasonable steps to produce it were taken but physical resistance prevented completion.
3. Giving the constable’s name and police station satisfies the duty applicable to uniformed officers but does not amount to part-performance of the separate and additional duty applicable to plain-clothes officers. In the normal case, the warrant card should be produced before, or at least at the same time as, the verbal introduction.
4. The authorities beginning with Mustapha Osman v Southwark Crown Court [1999] 163 JP 735 and continuing through R v Christopher Bristol [2007] EWCA Crim 3214, together with the statutory wording, established that compliance with the requirements was a precondition of a lawful search. Forde [1985] 81 Crim App R 19 predated the relevant statutory language and could not assist.
5. Because the search was unlawful, the constable was not acting in the execution of his duty and B was entitled to use reasonable force to resist it. The public order offence could nevertheless be made out if the force or threats used were excessive. The alleged threat to stab the constable therefore required further consideration.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal by way of case stated. The obstruction conviction was quashed and an acquittal substituted. The public order conviction was quashed and remitted to the Youth Court.
• West London Youth Court: convicted B of obstructing a police constable and using threatening or abusive words or behaviour.