Paul Charles Andrews v The Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary

For an arrest under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, reasonable suspicion is a low-threshold question. The officer may consider all information cumulatively, including matters that might not ultimately be admissible or sufficient for a charge. The question is whether there were objectively reasonable grounds to suspect the specific offence.

The custody officer’s duties under section 37 are distinct from the arresting officer’s duties under section 24. Section 37 does not require the custody officer to reassess the legality of the arrest. A review officer must act on the statutory position as it stands and has no general duty to conduct an ab initio review.

Police liability under Article 5 for detention imposed by a court requires an operative and exceptional act or omission causing the alleged infringement.

The appellant appealed against a County Court judgment dismissing claims arising from his arrest for attempted child abduction, his police detention, and his subsequent remand in custody. The appeal challenged the findings that the arrest and detention were lawful and that there had been no breach of Article 5 of the ECHR.

The central issues were whether the arresting officer had objectively reasonable grounds to suspect attempted child abduction; whether the custody officer and later review officers had acted lawfully under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and whether the police could be liable under Article 5 for the period of court-ordered remand.

1. Appeal dismissed. All three grounds failed.
2. Under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the threshold for reasonable suspicion is low. The grounds must be assessed by reference to the particular offence, but the officer need not decide whether the evidence would be admissible, sufficient to charge, or sufficient to convict. The information available to PC Pullen, viewed cumulatively, provided objectively reasonable grounds to suspect attempted child abduction.
3. The relevant acts included driving back towards the child, stopping near her, inviting her to dance, getting out and moving towards her with his arms open. The mother intervened as the child moved towards the appellant. Those acts were capable of amounting to conduct sufficiently close to the execution of the intended offence, rather than merely preparatory conduct. The cases on attempts were fact-sensitive and did not require a different conclusion.
4. Section 37 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 imposes a distinct statutory task. The custody officer must consider whether there is sufficient evidence to charge and, if not, whether detention is necessary to secure or preserve evidence or obtain evidence by questioning. The provision does not require the custody officer to reassess whether the arresting officer reasonably suspected the offence.
5. Section 34 does not impose a proactive duty to revisit the original legality of the arrest. It requires release where the custody officer becomes aware that the grounds for detention have ceased to apply and no other grounds justify continued detention. The same reasoning applied to the section 40 reviews, through the statutory modifications applying sections 37 and 38.
6. The Article 5 challenge to court-ordered remand failed. Following Zenati and AAA, liability requires an operative act or omission by the police which causes the relevant infringement, such as withholding material information that disables the court from exercising its judgment. Merely initiating the process leading to remand was insufficient. No exceptional circumstance was established.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): dismissed the appeal from the County Court at Norwich judgment dismissing all claims.
• County Court at Norwich: dismissed claims for false imprisonment, breach of the HRA and Article 5, assault and battery, and trespass to the appellant’s vehicle.