Shields v Merseyside Police

A summary arrest under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 24 is lawful where the arresting constable has the required reasonable suspicion and reasonably believes that arrest is necessary for a statutory reason. The constable need not perform an additional mental exercise or consciously identify the discretion being exercised.

An erroneous belief that another officer has already begun the arrest does not invalidate the arrest. The arrested person must know the substance of the grounds for arrest, but the stated offence need not correspond with technical precision where it conveys the conduct relied upon.

The appellant claimed damages for assault and false imprisonment after PC Maxwell detained him during a violent disturbance. A jury found that the appellant had assaulted another officer. Mr Recorder Hinchliffe QC dismissed the claims, holding that PC Maxwell had sufficient information to form a reasonable suspicion that the appellant had committed an offence.

The appellant appealed from Liverpool County Court. He contended that PC Maxwell lacked sufficient information and could not lawfully exercise the power under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 because he believed another officer had already placed the appellant under arrest. The central issue was whether the statutory conditions and necessary mental elements for a lawful arrest were satisfied.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. PC Maxwell had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the appellant had assaulted PC Holland in the execution of his duty. The radio calls, the disturbed scene, the presence of an injured young person, the appellant’s threatening behaviour and PC Holland’s statement about the assault provided ample material for that suspicion.

2. Under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, an arrest is lawful where the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence, or the officer has the corresponding reasonable suspicion, and the arresting officer reasonably believes that arrest is necessary for a reason in section 24(5). PC Maxwell reasonably believed arrest was necessary to prevent further physical harm and to secure a prompt and effective investigation.

3. The statutory code did not require PC Maxwell to undertake a further mental process after the conditions for arrest were satisfied. His mistaken belief that PC Holland had already begun the arrest was immaterial. He possessed the power, reasonably believed arrest to be necessary and himself took the appellant into custody.

4. The arrested person must know the substance of the reason for arrest. Technical precision in identifying the offence is unnecessary. An arrest for assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty could therefore be valid even if the conduct established only common assault, because both descriptions conveyed that the arrest concerned the assault on the identified officer.

5. The jury’s finding that the appellant had in fact committed the assault could potentially have justified arrest under section 24(3)(a). The respondent had, however, consciously declined to rely upon that ground. The court would not determine the appeal on a basis deliberately unadvanced below and instead upheld the arrest under section 24(2).

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld the recorder’s conclusion that the arrest was lawful under section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
2. Liverpool County Court: Mr Recorder Hinchliffe QC dismissed the appellant’s claims for assault and false imprisonment following the jury’s findings in favour of the police. He granted permission to appeal on the lawfulness of the arrest.