DE v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police

For an arrest under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 24, the officer must honestly believe that arrest is necessary for an identified statutory reason, and that belief must rest on objectively reasonable grounds assessed by reference to information known at the time. Bail conditions may satisfy the necessity requirement where the officer has specific conditions in mind to protect witnesses from intimidation and there is a tangible, evidence-based risk. A merely general or speculative possibility of bail conditions is insufficient. The appellate court reviews the legal question for itself, while giving appropriate weight to a trial judge who assessed the evidence. Detention must last no longer than reasonably necessary.

The appellant appealed from the dismissal by HHJ Boora in the Birmingham County Court of his claim for false imprisonment arising from his arrest and detention for suspected harassment. The arrest followed letters and emails sent to two families, a school and school governors concerning allegations made about the appellant’s son.

The appeal challenged the reasonableness of the officer’s belief in the necessity of arrest, the use of possible bail conditions as justification, the period of detention after interview, and an observation that the appellant had committed harassment. The central issues were whether the arrest satisfied section 24 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and whether the detention lasted longer than reasonably necessary.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal court upheld the lower court’s decision on all four grounds.

2. Under section 24 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the officer must subjectively believe that arrest is necessary for an identified reason in section 24(5), and that belief must be based on objectively reasonable grounds. The objective review applies independent standards to the particular officer’s decision and the information known when it was made.

3. The officer had reasonably considered the non-arrest alternative. A cursory consideration of voluntary attendance is sufficient for this aspect of the test. The appellate court conducted its own assessment but gave weight to the trial judge’s findings because he had heard the evidence and assessed the officer’s credibility.

4. Following the guidance in R (TL) v Chief Constable of Surrey Police [2017] EWHC 129 (Admin), bail conditions can satisfy section 24(5)(e) where there are reasonable grounds for believing that specific conditions are needed to protect witnesses from intimidation which would undermine an effective investigation. The officer’s concern here was not a bare possibility of bail conditions. He had specific no-contact conditions in mind, supported by the appellant’s earlier conduct, the distress caused to the families and the risk that further contact would pressure witnesses to retract their allegations.

5. Risk assessment is necessarily predictive, but it must have a tangible foundation. The evidence provided such a foundation. The fact that the appellant attended voluntarily, was of good character, and later had some bail conditions removed did not make the arrest unnecessary when assessed at the time.

6. The nearly two-hour period after interview was reasonably necessary. The respondent established that time was required to consider the interview, prepare bail conditions and complete a staff handover. Under sections 37(3) and 34(2) of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the evidence supported the conclusion that detention continued only while reasonably necessary.

7. The trial judge’s statement that the appellant had committed harassment was, at most, obiter and was more naturally understood as referring to reasonable grounds for suspicion. It did not undermine the decision.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): appeal from the Birmingham County Court dismissed.
• Birmingham County Court: HHJ Boora dismissed the false-imprisonment claim on 1 February 2022.