Proctor v The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police

In a wrongful-arrest claim, the defendant must prove both that the officer suspected the claimant of the offence and that the suspicion had objectively reasonable grounds. The inquiry uses the information actually available to the officer, assumes knowledge of the law, and requires grounds extending to every element of the offence. The threshold is low and requires suspicion, not proof.

Under the Fraud Act 2006, fraud by false representation is conduct-based. Evidence of how the public reacted is unnecessary to prove the offence, but may assist in evaluating the underlying representations and the overall picture. A flawed questionnaire or confrontational behaviour may affect the assessment without necessarily invalidating reasonable suspicion.

The appellant, aged 16 at arrest, operated an animal-rights campaign stall and solicited donations in Middlesbrough. He was arrested on suspicion of fraud by false representation under s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006, but was not prosecuted. He sued the Chief Constable for false arrest and related wrongs.

At trial, the Recorder accepted that the officer honestly suspected that the stall was being represented as charitable and had reasonable grounds for that suspicion. He also found that arrest was necessary for prompt and effective investigation. The County Court dismissed the claim on 9 September 2015. On appeal, the abandoned allegations fell away. The central issue was whether the officer and Recorder had properly assessed reasonable grounds for suspecting the statutory offence.

Disposition. Gross LJ dismissed the appeal. Lord Justice Simon agreed.

1. The relevant statutory framework was supplied by sections 24(1)(d) and 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, together with sections 24(4) and 24(5)(e). In a wrongful-arrest claim, the court first determines whether the officer actually suspected that the person arrested had committed the offence. It then determines objectively whether there was reasonable cause for that suspicion. The defendant bears the burden of proving reasonable cause on the balance of probabilities.
2. The objective test in Dallison v Caffrey [1965] 1 QB 348 and Mossop v DPP [2003] EWHC 1261 (Admin) requires consideration of the law and the information actually possessed by the officer. The reasonable grounds must extend to all elements of the suspected offence. The threshold is low: suspicion is different from proof, as explained in Hussien v Chang Fook Kam [1970] 942 (PC) and Raissi v Comr of Police of Metropolis [2008] EWCA Civ 1237; [2009] QB 564.
3. Fraud by false representation under s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006 is conduct-based rather than result-based. It was unnecessary to prove that any member of the public believed or acted upon a representation, or that a gain or loss resulted. Nevertheless, the questionnaire responses were not wholly irrelevant. They could assist as a reality check and help illuminate the underlying conduct and representations. The defective questionnaire reduced the weight of the answers, but it formed only part of the evidence and did not vitiate the decision.
4. The officer needed to understand the offence, but the fact that his suspicion later proved mistaken did not establish such a failure. The distinction between a charity and a campaigning group was legally clear but not straightforward to apply in the circumstances. The officer was not bound to accept the appellant’s denial, although it had to be considered.
5. The appellant’s uncooperative or confrontational conduct could not alone furnish reasonable grounds, since civil liberties are not confined to cooperative persons. It could, however, contribute to the overall picture. The appearance of the collection box, the surrounding circumstances, the officer’s evidence and the questionnaire responses together supplied a reasonable basis for suspicion. The Recorder’s conclusion that the arrest was lawful was therefore upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the County Court’s dismissal of the claim: [2017] EWCA Civ 1531.
2. County Court at Leeds: Mr Recorder Reeds QC dismissed the claim for false arrest and related relief on 9 September 2015.