Richardson v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

For an arrest under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 24, the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary. The officer must consider whether the objective can be achieved by a practical alternative, such as voluntary attendance for interview. The belief is subjective, but the grounds for it are objectively assessed. The police must prove the officer’s belief and reasonable grounds. The court reviews the exercise of the arrest power on Wednesbury principles. A custody officer’s reasons for detention cannot cure the absence of evidence that the arresting officer satisfied the statutory necessity requirement. A general practice of arresting voluntary attenders because they could leave during interview is insufficient.

The claimant, a teacher, attended a police station voluntarily with his solicitor to answer an allegation that he had assaulted a pupil. He was told that he would be arrested if he declined a proposed local resolution. He then travelled voluntarily to another police station, where he was arrested and interviewed.

The arresting officer gave no evidence and had recorded the fact, but not the reasons, for the arrest. The custody officer relied on the possibility that the claimant might leave during a voluntary interview and on the seriousness of the allegation. The issues were whether the arrest satisfied the necessity requirement in section 24(4) of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and whether consequential records and samples should be removed.

1. Unlawful arrest. The claimant established false imprisonment. The arrest was unlawful and damages of £1,000 were awarded.
2. Statutory requirements. A lawful arrest required reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of the offence, a reason within section 24(5), and reasonable grounds for believing that arrest was necessary. The first two requirements were satisfied, but the third was not established.
3. Necessity and review. The relevant state of mind was that of the arresting officer. The police had to establish both the officer’s belief that arrest was necessary and reasonable grounds for that belief. The court could then review the discretionary exercise of the power on Wednesbury principles. The officer had to evaluate whether an alternative, including voluntary attendance, could achieve the investigative objective.
4. Evidence and custody functions. The custody officer’s duties under section 37 arose only after arrest and concerned detention, not the initial decision to arrest. His reasons could not cure the absence of evidence that the arresting officer had considered necessity. The reasoning in Lewis and Evans v the Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary was distinguishable because that case concerned failure to state the grounds of an otherwise valid arrest.
5. Application. The claimant had voluntarily attended two police stations, remained cooperative and travelled to the second station knowing that he would be arrested. There was no evidential basis for believing that he would leave the interview. Applying the approach in Alexander and others: Applications for Judicial Review, a pre-emptive practice of arresting voluntary attenders was insufficient. On the evidence, a belief in the necessity of arrest would have been Wednesbury unreasonable.
6. Records and samples. The court declined mandatory orders concerning fingerprints, DNA, photographs and the PNC record. Disclosure on an enhanced criminal record certificate depended on the chief officer’s opinion of relevance and whether information ought to be included, rather than on arrest alone. The claim for injunctive relief therefore failed.