Metcalf v Crown Prosecution Service (Rev 1)

For an offence under Police Act 1996, section 89(2), the prosecution must prove that the defendant wilfully obstructed a constable while the constable was executing his duty. An officer’s unlawful use of force does not retrospectively validate earlier obstruction, nor does it generally immunise subsequent obstruction relating to the officer’s continuing lawful duty. The authority concerning resistance to unlawful restraint applies to the offence of assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty. It does not establish a general defence to wilful obstruction. Under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, an officer may use reasonable force to prevent the continuing crime of wilful obstruction.

The appellant was convicted at Bradford and Keighley Magistrates’ Court of wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty. Police officers were securing an arrested man in a police car for transport to a police station. The appellant repeatedly interfered, attempted to open the car door and sought to speak to the arrested man. A police constable pushed him out of the way. The appellant argued that the push was an assault and that, under Fraser Wood v Director of Public Prosecution [2008] EWHC 1056 (Admin), the officer was not acting in the execution of his duty. The central issue was whether the alleged assault affected liability for obstruction before or after the push.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to reject the submission of no case and convict the appellant.
2. For section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996, the prosecution had to prove that, at the time of the obstruction, the constable was executing his duty, and that the defendant wilfully prevented or made it more difficult for him to perform his work: Lewis v Cox [1985] Q.B. 509.
3. Fraser Wood v Director of Public Prosecution concerned assaulting officers in the execution of their duty. It confirmed that an officer who unlawfully restrained a person without lawful authority was not acting in the execution of his duty for that offence. A person subjected to unlawful restraint could use reasonable force to free himself: Ludlow v Burgess 75 Cr App R 227. The decision did not establish that an officer’s assault removes the officer from the execution of his duty for all purposes, or that the victim is immune from criminal liability for obstruction.
4. The constables’ continuing duty included securing the arrested man in the police car and maintaining the peace. Any obstruction before the push was independently criminal. Any unlawful push would not have retrospectively changed that position or prevented the officer from continuing to execute his duty concerning the arrested man.
5. The push was lawful. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 authorised reasonable force to prevent the continuing crime of wilful obstruction. The force used was reasonable on the facts. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the reach of section 117 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

• Bradford and Keighley Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant on 4 November 2014 of wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by case stated and upheld the conviction.