Alanov v Sussex Police

For a warrantless arrest under section 24(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1986, the officer must actually suspect the person of the offence, have objectively reasonable grounds for that suspicion, and reasonably exercise the arrest discretion. The threshold is low, but the available material must provide an objective connection between the suspect and the offence. Proximity, nervousness, lies, unusual conduct and general concerns about delay or public safety do not suffice where they provide no particular connection. Here, the related detention and assault claims succeeded on liability by concession.

The appellant was arrested without a warrant in his flat during house-to-house inquiries into a nearby rape. He was detained for more than six hours, released on bail and never charged. Forensic testing established that there was nothing connecting him with the offence.

He claimed trespass, unlawful arrest and detention, assault, psychological injury, and aggravated and exemplary damages. The Brighton County Court found trespass, awarded £500, and dismissed the other liability claims. The appeal concerned whether the arresting constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the appellant was guilty of the rape.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case to HHJ Simpkiss for reconsideration of damages and costs.

1. Section 24(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1986 involved three questions: whether the constable actually suspected the person of guilt; whether there were objectively reasonable grounds for that suspicion; and whether it was reasonable to exercise the arrest discretion. Only the second question was in issue.
2. The threshold for reasonable grounds was low, and the material known to the constable could be sparse. Nevertheless, it had to enable the tribunal of fact to conclude objectively that reasonable grounds existed.
3. The relevant material consisted of the proximity of the alleged rape, the appellant’s partner’s lies and nervousness, the appellant’s presence naked in the shower while washing his genitals, his aggressive and uncooperative behaviour, his denial that a rape had occurred, and the possibility that the victim’s description was inaccurate. None of these matters connected the appellant with the offence in any particular way. Several were capable of reasonable explanation, and the appellant’s conduct in the shower was not a basis for suspicion without something more tangible.
4. Concerns about delay in obtaining forensic evidence and risks to the public were irrelevant to reasonable grounds because they did not connect the appellant with the alleged offence. The fact that the officer had not asked basic questions about identity, residence, relationship, whereabouts, clothing or access to clothing was material. Further questioning might have supplied sufficient material, but that was a hypothetical observation.
5. The arrest was therefore unlawful. The respondent accepted that liability followed for unlawful detention and assault. Trespass damages had to be reassessed for the whole period of entry, and damages for all claims, including any psychological injury, had to be reconsidered. The existing factual findings were not to be relitigated. The court doubted that aggravated or exemplary damages remained available. Appeal costs were awarded to the appellant, with the first-trial costs remitted for decision.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — in [2012] EWCA Civ 234, allowed the appeal and remitted damages and costs issues.
• Brighton County Court — HHJ Simpkiss, order dated 27 January 2011: found trespass, awarded £500, and dismissed the claims for unlawful arrest, unlawful detention and assault.