Adler v Crown Prosecution Service

An arrest may be effected by words without formal language. The question is whether, in the circumstances, the words and conduct made it clear to the person concerned that he was under compulsion and that he understood the grounds for the arrest. Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the person must generally be informed that he is under arrest and of the grounds for it, but the statute does not require a prescribed formula. Evidence that a person was told he was being detained for suspected offending, while being physically prevented from leaving, may be sufficient. A case stated concerning evidential sufficiency must contain the evidence, not merely the facts found.

The appellant was convicted by a district judge of assaulting a police officer whom he had tried to prevent from restraining another person. The officer, while off duty and in plain clothes, had seen the other person break a car window, identified himself as a police officer, physically restrained him and repeatedly said that he was detaining him for the damage. The district judge found that the officer had lawfully arrested the other person and convicted the appellant.

The appeal by way of case stated concerned whether there was sufficient evidence for that finding, particularly whether the officer had made clear that the person was under arrest as required by Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The court declined to determine the appeal summarily on an unargued alternative under Criminal Law Act 1967.

1. Appeal dismissed. The case stated appeal turned on evidential sufficiency, not a pure question of law. Under Part 64.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, a case stated raising sufficiency of evidence must specify the evidence. The omission required the transcript of the officer’s evidence to be added before the appeal could be heard.
2. An arrest may be made by seizure or touching with a view to restraint. Words alone may constitute an arrest where, in the circumstances, they are calculated to bring, and do bring, to the person’s notice that he is under compulsion and he submits to it. Formal words are unnecessary. The court relied on Alderson v Booth [1969] 2 QB 216 and the observation in Clarke v Chief Constable of North Wales (transcript 5 April 2000) that vernacular expressions may suffice.
3. Section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 generally requires the arrested person to be informed that he is under arrest and of the grounds. It was not necessary to use the words “I am arresting you”. The decisive question was whether the evidence supported the judge’s finding that the officer had communicated the substance of those requirements before the appellant intervened.
4. The accepted evidence showed that the officer repeatedly identified himself as a police officer, stated that he had seen the person break the car window, said that he was detaining him, called for the police and physically prevented him from leaving. That evidence was sufficient to support the finding that it had been made clear that the person was under arrest for criminal damage. The conviction was therefore correct.
5. The court considered, but did not determine, whether the case could instead have been resolved under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. That issue had not been raised before the district judge, and summary determination on it would not have been fair.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the district judge was dismissed. The district judge’s conviction was upheld.