Sykes v Crown Prosecution Service (Manchester)

For an offence requiring proof that a police officer was acting in the execution of his duty, the prosecution need not produce the relevant search warrant or call evidence from an officer with direct knowledge of its contents. The court may infer the existence and validity of the warrant from the whole evidential picture. Relevant matters may include a planned raid, the involvement of a specialist police unit and several officers, forcible entry, and evidence that the officer acted under superior direction as part of the search team. A bare assertion or belief by an officer without supporting evidence may be insufficient. The question is whether the evidence as a whole permits the tribunal of fact to conclude, in the absence of countervailing evidence, that an effective warrant existed.

Wayne Sykes was convicted by Greater Manchester justices of wilfully obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996. He was conditionally discharged and ordered to pay costs and a surcharge.

The prosecution case was that PC O'Brien arrested him during a planned police raid to search for illegal drugs. At trial, the justices rejected a submission of no case to answer. By Case Stated, they asked whether they could convict without further evidence proving the existence or details of the warrant, and whether they could find that the officer was acting in the execution of his duty without evidence from him personally establishing those details.

1. The appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed. Both questions posed by the justices were answered in the affirmative.
2. Evidence of an officer's mere belief that a warrant existed, where the officer had not applied for it, seen it or known its details, would not by itself constitute sufficient evidence of the warrant's existence.
3. Actual production of the warrant was not required. Following Linehan v DPP [1999] WLR 33114371, the issue was whether the Crown had called sufficient evidence to entitle the justices to find that the officer was acting in the execution of his duty.
4. The justices were entitled to assess the evidence cumulatively. The planned nature of the raid, the involvement of the Tactical Aid Unit and several officers, the forcible entry, and PC O'Brien's participation under the direction of superior officers provided supporting evidence beyond his own belief. In the absence of countervailing evidence or any suggestion undermining the warrant's validity, the justices could properly infer that a valid and effective warrant existed.
5. The prosecution was therefore not required in every case to produce the warrant or call direct evidence from a senior officer, the officer who applied for it, or the officer concerned. The conviction and sentence stood.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On an appeal by way of Case Stated, answered both questions in the affirmative and upheld the justices’ conviction and sentence.