Hayes v Merseyside Police

Under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, an arrest is lawful where the constable honestly believes, on reasonable grounds and on information then known, that arrest is necessary for an identified statutory reason. The statute does not require a separate, exhaustive consideration of every alternative to arrest or a public-law review of the officer’s reasoning process.

Officers should consider less intrusive means. A failure to do so may show that there were no objectively reasonable grounds for believing arrest necessary. It is not, however, an independent precondition to lawful arrest. A complainant’s initial wish to withdraw an allegation does not necessarily end reasonable grounds for pre-charge detention where a prompt inquiry is needed to establish whether the withdrawal is genuine and free from pressure.

The claimant was arrested following a complaint that he had assaulted and threatened a former drug customer. The arresting officer relied on the need for a prompt and effective investigation, including questioning the claimant and securing any relevant mobile telephone.

The complainant later stated by telephone that he did not wish to pursue the matter. The officer promptly visited him, obtained a statement that he would not assist the investigation, and the claimant was then released without charge.

Liverpool County Court dismissed the claimant’s claims for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention. On appeal, the central issues were whether section 24 required the officer to consider every alternative to arrest, and whether the complainant’s initial withdrawal required the custody sergeant immediately to release the claimant.

1. Appeal dismissed. Hughes LJ, with whom Richards and Ward LJJ agreed, held that the arrest and the ensuing detention were lawful.
2. Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires the arresting officer to have an honest belief that arrest is necessary for one or more identified reasons in section 24(5), and objectively reasonable grounds for that belief on the facts known at the time. The relevant reason here was section 24(5)(e): allowing a prompt and effective investigation.
3. The section does not impose a third, freestanding stage requiring the officer to consider every possible alternative, take account of every relevant matter, and exclude every irrelevant matter. Such a requirement would wrongly subject operational arrest decisions to a full public-law reasons challenge. Consideration of voluntary attendance and other alternatives remains relevant because an officer who gives them no thought may be unable to show objectively reasonable grounds for believing arrest necessary.
4. Code G did not alter that test. It sensibly advises officers to consider less intrusive means, but its breach does not itself create civil liability. On the facts known to the officer, voluntary attendance would not have provided an equally effective investigation. Arrest enabled controlled questioning, examination of a telephone without warning, and prevention of unsupervised communications which might jeopardise the complainant or evidence.
5. The custody sergeant was not obliged to release the claimant merely because the complainant had first indicated that he wished to withdraw his complaint. Given the nature of the allegation and the apparent relationship between the men, there were reasonable grounds for a short further detention while the officer verified the withdrawal and whether it resulted from pressure. The claimant was released once that inquiry was completed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Dismissed the claimant’s appeal from the dismissal of his claims for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention: [2011] EWCA Civ 911.
• Liverpool County Court His Honour Judge Gore QC found for the Chief Constable. The lower-court judgment citation was not stated in the judgment.