Nassinde v Chester Magistrates Court

A police power to enter private premises to save life or limb requires reasonable grounds for believing that intervention is necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily harm. General welfare concerns are insufficient. The court must assess all the evidence and should not treat expressions such as “welfare concern” or “inappropriate” as determinative. The evidence may include events occurring after arrest where those events bear on the officers’ earlier assessment. If the threshold is met, the officers remain lawfully present and act in the execution of their duty. If it is not met, they must leave unless the occupier acquiesces, in which case their status is that of an invitee.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against four convictions for assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty, contrary to Police Act 1996, section 89(1). Two officers entered her flat after being called to a suspected domestic incident and remained after finding that she was alone. The magistrates concluded that her erratic and aggressive behaviour, apparent drug use and the circumstances observed gave the officers reasonable grounds to believe that she was at risk of serious self-harm.

The appeal concerned whether the officers were lawfully present under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 17(1)(e), whether they were acting in the execution of their duty, and whether the subsequent arrest and assaults on two further officers were lawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. The questions stated by the magistrates were answered in the affirmative.
2. The occupier’s right to exclude the police from private premises is strongly protected. Under section 17(1)(e) of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, officers may enter and search to save life or limb or prevent serious damage to property. They may remain only where the evidence establishes a risk of imminent serious bodily harm. Genuine welfare concerns, or an officer’s view that it would be neglectful or inappropriate to leave the occupant alone, are insufficient in isolation.
3. The court must scrutinise all the evidence and must not be controlled by colloquial terminology such as “welfare concern”. Each case is fact-specific. The principles in Baker v Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 299 (Admin) and Syed v DPP [2010] 1 Cr.App.R 34 were reaffirmed and applied.
4. The magistrates were entitled to take account of the claimant’s conduct after arrest, including her continuing extreme agitation and admission of drug use, insofar as it corroborated the officers’ earlier assessment. On the facts found, the officers reasonably and genuinely believed that she posed a danger of serious harm to herself. Their continued presence was therefore lawful, and they acted in the execution of their duty.
5. The arrest and continuing detention were lawful. The later officers were also acting in the execution of their duty. The court therefore had no need to determine whether there had otherwise been a break in time, role or causation.

• Chester Magistrates Court: convicted the claimant on four counts of assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty.
• High Court (Administrative Court): heard the appeal by way of case stated and answered the magistrates’ questions affirmatively, dismissing the appeal.