Syed v Director of Public Prosecutions

Police powers to enter premises without a warrant under section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 require an apprehension of serious bodily injury, death, or serious property damage. A general concern for the welfare of persons inside the premises is too low a threshold. The statutory language must be construed in its context, including the neighbouring reference to preventing serious damage to property. Where an assault charge depends on the officer acting in the execution of duty, an unlawful attempted entry means that the statutory element is not established.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Oxfordshire justices for assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89 of the Police Act 1996. Police officers had attended his home after a report of a verbal argument and sought to enter under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The justices considered that concern for the welfare of persons inside, together with the claimant’s evasiveness, justified entry by force.

The central issue was whether, on the stated facts, the officers were acting in the execution of their duty when purporting to use the statutory power.

1. Appeal allowed. The court answered the justices’ question in the negative. The officers could not properly be regarded as acting in the execution of their duty on the facts stated.
2. Section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 permits entry and search without a warrant for saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property. The language shows that Parliament intended the power to be confined to cases involving an apprehension that something serious had occurred or was likely to occur within the premises.
3. The court applied the reasoning in Baker v Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 299 (Admin), including the observation that the reference to saving life or limb ordinarily involves apprehended serious bodily injury. Possible knife or gunshot injuries were examples, not an exhaustive definition.
4. Concern for the welfare of someone inside the premises did not satisfy the statutory threshold. It was too low a test, particularly given the seriousness of forcing entry into a citizen’s home.
5. The claimant’s reaction might have been inappropriate, but the charge required proof that the constables were acting in the execution of their duty. The conviction therefore could not stand. Costs were ordered from central funds.

• Oxfordshire justices: convicted the claimant of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty on 21 April 2009.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by way of case stated, held that the officers were not acting in the execution of their duty and allowed the appeal.