Reda, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

For an arrest under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the question is whether the constable had reasonable grounds to suspect an offence at the time of arrest. In a section 89 prosecution under the Police Act 1996, that question is distinct from proving the underlying public-order offence beyond reasonable doubt. A constable may reasonably infer that persons were present and able to hear or see conduct occurring in a public place, having regard to the surrounding circumstances. The officer need not establish with certainty that a particular person actually heard the words before making the arrest. The appeal was dismissed because the Crown Court was entitled to find reasonable grounds for suspicion on the evidence.

The claimant was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. He had also been charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, but was acquitted on that charge. The Crown Court upheld the section 89 conviction, finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that a public-order offence had been committed or was about to be committed.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had sufficient evidence to conclude that the arrest was lawful and that the officer was acting in the execution of his duty.

1. Appeal dismissed. The essential question was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction under section 89 of the Police Act 1996. The court answered that question in the affirmative.
2. The court distinguished the proof required for an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 from the reasonable-suspicion requirement governing an arrest under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Failure to prove the section 5 offence did not necessarily show that the arrest was unlawful.
3. The arrest had to be assessed from the constable’s position at the time of arrest. The evidence showed that the words were used in a public place, near a main road and a police van. A colleague was within hearing distance, and other youths were present. In those circumstances, the constable could reasonably proceed on the footing that persons might have been able to hear the words and might have been caused harassment, alarm or distress.
4. The court accepted that it would have been preferable for the Crown Court not to refer to the possibility that members of the public might emerge later. That did not invalidate its conclusion, which was properly open on the actual findings and evidence.
5. Questions A and B in the case stated were not answered because they did not accurately reflect the findings. Question C was answered yes. The application for costs was refused. The claimant was given 14 days to formulate any proposed point of law of general public importance for certification.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal by way of case stated dismissed. The Crown Court’s decision upholding the conviction under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 was affirmed.
• Crown Court at Basildon: Appeal from the Magistrates’ Court dismissed on 11 June 2010; the conviction was upheld.
• Grays Youth Court: The claimant was convicted under section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996 and acquitted under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.