Morris v R

Under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, the availability of reasonable force to prevent crime depends on the defendant’s honest belief as to the facts, even if that belief was unreasonable. The force used must nevertheless be reasonable in those believed circumstances.

A person providing a service need not identify the precise moment at which another forms a dishonest intention to avoid payment. A taxi driver who honestly believes passengers are making off without payment may seek to stop them to prevent that offence. A jury must be directed to consider that defence and the reasonableness of the force used; it is wrong to confine the issue to the distinct requirements for a citizen’s arrest.

The appellant, a taxi driver, was convicted at Swansea Crown Court of dangerous driving after driving onto a pavement while attempting to stop passengers whom he believed were leaving without paying their fare. One passenger suffered a broken ankle.

The appellant maintained that he believed the men were making off without payment and that his actions were reasonable to prevent crime or assist a lawful arrest. The trial judge left only the lawful-arrest limb of section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to the jury. The appeal concerned whether the prevention-of-crime limb should also have been left, and whether the conviction was consequently safe.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction for dangerous driving was unsafe and was quashed. The court declined to order a retrial and directed that the facts be referred to the relevant licensing authority.

2. The trial judge was correct that the direction on lawful citizen’s arrest accurately reflected section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. However, that did not answer the separate defence under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 of using reasonable force to prevent crime.

3. The court held that, in applying that defence, the relevant factual circumstances are those honestly believed by the defendant. An honest but mistaken belief may therefore found the defence, although a mistake of law cannot do so. The jury should then decide whether the force used was reasonable in those believed circumstances.

4. A taxi driver need not determine with precision when a passenger has formed a dishonest intention not to pay. A driver may follow and challenge a passenger where the driver honestly believes that the passenger is making off without payment, so as to prevent the offence. The fact that the passengers had moved away from the taxi did not conclusively prevent that issue arising.

5. The judge’s direction required the jury first to find reasonable grounds for believing that arrest was necessary. If it did not do so, it was prevented from considering the appellant’s honest belief and whether his use of force might have been reasonable to prevent crime. That was an error of law. Although the court doubted that a properly directed jury would find the force reasonable, the misdirection made the conviction unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2013] EWCA Crim 436, the appeal against conviction was allowed. The conviction was quashed, no retrial was ordered, and the facts were referred to the relevant licensing authority.
• Crown Court at Swansea: The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving on 22 May 2012 and sentenced to a community order, disqualification from driving for 12 months, and an extended retest.