Demetriou v Director of Public Prosecutions

On an appeal by case stated, the Divisional Court should not substitute its own factual inferences for those of the magistrates. The question is whether, on the facts found, the officer had a reasonable basis for anticipating an imminent breach of the peace. In a domestic setting, the shared home may make further confrontation more probable after one person has apparently left. The law does not require domestic violence and street violence to be assessed by different principles. An arrest is lawful where the officer’s assessment of the future risk is reasonably supported by the circumstances known at the time.

The claimant was convicted by Harringay Magistrates on 8 March 2011 of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. The conviction followed the claimant’s arrest after a domestic disturbance. The case stated asked whether the magistrates were entitled to find that the arresting officer was acting in the execution of his duty, having feared that the claimant would return and cause further trouble.

The appeal concerned the proper approach to the magistrates’ factual findings and the lawfulness of the arrest.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court answered yes to the question posed in the case stated. The arrest was lawful and the claimant’s assault on the officer was committed while the officer was acting in the execution of his duty.
2. On an appeal by case stated, the Divisional Court must not merely substitute its own inferences for those drawn by the magistrates. The issue was whether the magistrates were entitled, on the facts found and having regard to the burden and standard of proof, to conclude that there was a reasonable basis for anticipating future violence or a breach of the peace.
3. The magistrates were entitled to consider the combination of the interrupted emergency call, the condition of the premises, the knife and other circumstances observed by the officers, and the claimant’s attitude. The claimant’s apparent willingness to leave did not require the officer to disregard the risk that he might return.
4. Domestic disturbances are not governed by a separate rule which distinguishes violence or breach of the peace in the home from violence or breach of the peace in public. Foulkes v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police [1998] 3 All ER and McConnell v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [1990] 1 WLR 364 were described as hopelessly out of date and not to be relied upon.
5. The approach in R (on the application of Shane Wragg) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2005] EWHC 1389, contrasting the ability of people in the street to go their separate ways with the continuing proximity imposed by a shared home, was adopted. That circumstance made it more probable that the claimant would return after the officers had left.
6. No order was made as to costs, having regard to the claimant’s limited means, legal aid, and the domestic circumstances.

1. Harringay Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant on 8 March 2011 of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): on appeal by case stated, upheld the conviction and answered the question posed in the affirmative. No order as to costs.