Director of Public Prosecutions v Sidney Price & Anor

On a case-stated appeal, the court must assess the substance of the magistrates’ reasoning in context, but the correct legal test must have been applied. For arrest under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, reasonable suspicion is distinct from proof sufficient to establish a prima facie case. A formal complaint by the owner is not a prerequisite to reasonable suspicion of criminal damage. The question whether police officers were acting in the exercise of their functions as emergency workers is also distinct from whether their conduct was lawful. Unlawfulness may be highly relevant, but it is not determinative. Where the wrong tests were applied and the result would not inevitably have been the same under the correct tests, the appeal should be allowed and the matter remitted.

Two defendants were tried in the magistrates’ court for assaults on emergency workers. The first defendant was also charged with assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension. The District Judge dismissed the charges at the close of the prosecution case, holding that the police had lacked a lawful basis to enter the property to arrest the first defendant for criminal damage because the property owner had made no formal complaint.

The prosecution appealed by way of case stated. The issues were whether the District Judge had applied the correct test for reasonable suspicion and lawful entry, and whether the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct was conclusive of whether they were acting in the exercise of their functions as emergency workers.

1. Appeal allowed. The District Judge had applied the wrong approach to the lawfulness of the arrest and entry. The correct question was whether the officer suspected that an indictable offence had been committed, whether there were reasonable grounds for that suspicion, whether the officer believed arrest was necessary for a statutory reason, and whether there were reasonable grounds for that belief. The officer’s state of mind required factual assessment, while the existence of reasonable grounds was an objective question. The arresting officer also retained a discretion to arrest, which had to be exercised lawfully.
2. The District Judge had instead asked whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of criminal damage. That was materially different from asking whether there was reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion could exist even though the owner of the damaged property was not making a complaint at the time of arrest. The initial call, the owner’s emotional state, the first defendant’s conduct, the visible damage, the allegation that the kitchen had been smashed, and the circumstances of the retraction could provide grounds for reasonable suspicion.
3. The District Judge also treated the lawfulness of the entry as determinative of whether the officers were acting in the exercise of their functions as emergency workers. That was wrong. Under the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, lawfulness is not a precondition to acting in the exercise of functions. The two questions are separate. Lawfulness may be highly relevant, but it does not necessarily determine whether the statutory aggravated offence is established.
4. Dismissal of the charges would not inevitably have followed from applying the correct tests. The matter was therefore remitted to District Judge Khanna to determine the application to dismiss the case for want of evidence in light of the judgment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The prosecution’s case-stated appeal was allowed. The matter was remitted to District Judge Khanna for determination of the application to dismiss the case in light of the correct legal tests.
• Nottingham Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Khanna dismissed the charges at the close of the prosecution case.