Rawlins v Crown Prosecution Service

A constable may arrest to prevent a breach of the peace where the person’s conduct, viewed in its factual context, makes violence sufficiently imminent. Physical aggression, including advancing with clenched fists, may provide the necessary basis for arrest. A challenge to the reasonableness of an earlier stage of the officers’ conduct will not determine the legality of the arrest if the arrest was made in response to a later and distinct imminent threat. A person cannot resist an eviction where no eviction had occurred. In any event, physical aggression may be a disproportionate response to a request or suggestion that the person leave.

Armani Rawlins appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Basildon Magistrates’ Court for three assaults on constables in the execution of their duty, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996.

The magistrates found that, after officers suggested that Mr Rawlins leave his parents’ home, he stood with clenched fists and moved towards them aggressively. They concluded that the officers reasonably and honestly believed a breach of the peace would occur in the immediate future and that they were acting in the execution of their duty when they arrested him. The appeal concerned whether the arrest was lawful and whether the officers had unlawfully evicted him.

1. Appeal dismissed. Questions (b) and (c) in the stated case were answered in the affirmative.
2. The officers were acting in the execution of their duty when they arrested Mr Rawlins. The relevant conduct was his physical aggression, namely standing with clenched fists and moving towards the officers, viewed against the background of the information previously given by his father. That conduct could properly be regarded as making a breach of the peace imminent.
3. The argument concerning the magistrates’ approach to the objective assessment of reasonableness did not affect the result. It was directed to the period before the physical aggression. The appellant did not contend that the later threatened breach of the peace was not imminent.
4. There was no eviction, lawful or unlawful, for Mr Rawlins to resist at the stage when he became aggressive. The officer had explained that he might be arrested if he did not leave and had suggested that he pack a bag and leave. Even if those words amounted to an eviction, the appellant’s physical aggression would have been a disproportionate response.

• Basildon Magistrates’ Court: convicted the appellant of three assaults on constables in the execution of their duty on 20 October 2017.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and answered questions (b) and (c) in the affirmative.