I thought I would begin this year’s blog posts with a reminder, drawn from a Judgment handed down recently at Bradford County Court in favour of my client Syed Ahmed, about how the requirement for an arrest to satisfy the statutory ‘necessity’ criteria as well as grounds of reasonable suspicion of an offence, is such an important safeguard of our civil liberties.
The facts in this case were as follows:
My client Mr Ahmed brought a claim against West Yorkshire Police for false imprisonment, trespass to the person (i.e. assault and battery) and trespass to goods arising out of his arrest and detention on 26 September 2018. There was little dispute between the parties at the Trial of this matter as to the facts of the incident.
In summary, Mr Ahmed was driving home through Bradford when he was pulled over by a Police vehicle being driven by PC Boyle.
After my client had pulled over as directed by the Officer, PC Boyle approached and ordered Mr Ahmed to get out of his own car and to sit in the Police car. When Mr Ahmed questioned why this was necessary PC Boyle put his arm through the car window and attempted, but failed, to pull the keys from the ignition.
PC Boyle continued to demand that Mr Ahmed left the car – threatening to arrest him for obstructing Police if he failed to do so. Mr Ahmed continued to refuse to leave his vehicle, questioning the Officer as to what lawful power he was relying upon. PC Boyle replied that he was acting under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act.
Mr Ahmed provided his driving licence to PC Boyle on request, but continued to refuse to exit the vehicle or give the Officer his keys, as he did not think this was necessary and he did not believe the Officer’s request in this regard to be a lawful one.
At this point PC Boyle then opened Mr Ahmed’s car door and placed a handcuff upon him. These interactions were all recorded on Mr Ahmed’s mobile phone, as follows:
Other Officers arrived at the scene following PC Boyle’s request for ‘backup’ and PC Boyle informed Mr Ahmed that he was now under arrest on suspicion of obstructing a Police Officer. My client protested the legitimacy of this and asked PC Boyle how he was defining ‘obstruction’ given that he had stopped when requested and provided his driving licence. He also expressed concern that in trying to remove the car key from the ignition PC Boyle had damaged the car.
Police Officers now forcibly removed Mr Ahmed from his car and applied the second handcuff and placed him in the rear of the Police vehicle. My client complained of pain to his back and arms.
PC Boyle then checked Mr Ahmed’s details and then informed him that he was de-arrested and that a Summons would now be issued in relation to the manner of Mr Ahmed’s driving. The Officer stated he had originally intended to simply inform Mr Ahmed that he was speeding, but because of his attitude he was now giving him a ticket.
Mr Ahmed’s period of detention was fortunately fairly short – approximately 10 minutes. However on return to his own vehicle, my client could not get his car to re-start as the ignition was not working. He called his cousin, a vehicle mechanic who was close by and able to attend and assist in getting the car started; Mr Ahmed subsequently established that the ignition barrel required replacing and he believed that this was due to damage caused by PC Boyle’s actions as described above.
Mr Ahmed was subsequently summonsed to Court for careless driving in March 2019. He pleaded not guilty to this offence and the matter was discontinued prior to going to Trial.
With my assistance, Mr Ahmed instituted County Court proceedings against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police for false imprisonment (i.e. wrongful arrest) arguing that his arrest was not based on an honest and/or reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and furthermore that PC Boyle had not in any event given proper consideration as to whether such an arrest was necessary in the circumstances. Our argument was that even if an objectively reasonable suspicion existed in PC Boyle’s mind that he was being obstructed in the execution of his duty by Mr Ahmed (in the context of Mr Ahmed’s refusal to exit his car) the decision to arrest him was in the circumstances not a proportionate and lawful exercise of the Officer’s power.
Necessity for Arrest
The relevant test is set out in Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984.
Specifically, Section 24 (4) PACE requires that an arresting Officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to effect the arrest. The reasons for which an arrest may be necessary are exhaustively listed at Section 24 (5).
Furthermore, PACE Code G requires all Officers using the power of arrest to first consider if their objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means.
In particular:-
- The Officer is required to examine and justify the reason or reasons why a person needs to be taken into Custody at a Police Station.
- In considering the individual circumstances, the Officer must take into account the situation of the victim, the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the suspect and the needs of the investigative process.
The most commonly relied upon of the necessity criteria is that given at S.24(5)(e) PACE which is – “to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question”.
Examples of what this would mean in practice are provided at Code G (para 2.9) as follows:-
- It is thought unlikely that the person would attend at the Police Station voluntarily to be interviewed;
- The person has made false statements and/or presented false evidence;
- The person may have the opportunity to steal or destroy evidence;
- The person may have the opportunity to make contact with co-suspects or conspirators;
- It is believed the person may intimidate, threaten or otherwise make contact with witnesses.
The Trial
The Trial of Mr Ahmed’s claim took place between 17-20 October 2022.
After hearing all of the witness evidence and legal argument, the Jurors ruled in favour of the Police on the question as to whether PC Boyle ‘honestly believed’ that Mr Ahmed was obstructing him in carrying out road traffic checks and that PC Boyle honestly believed it was reasonably necessary to handcuff Mr Ahmed, prior to his arrest, to prevent Mr Ahmed from either assaulting him or driving away. The Jurors did however reject the Police assertion that Mr Ahmed had unlawfully assaulted PC Boyle by grabbing his body armour.
The Jury’s decision on those points was not the end of this matter, however. The Jurors role in civil claims is to make determinations on questions of fact – in this case whether or not an assault had taken place and whether or not PC Boyle honestly (i.e subjectively) believed it was necessary to handcuff and/or arrest my client.
It was now for the Judge to address the legal (rather than factual) question as to whether, regardless of PC Boyle’s own subjective belief, his actions against Mr Ahmed were objectively reasonable and necessary.
The Judge did conclude that it was objectively reasonable for PC Boyle to form the view that Mr Ahmed had obstructed him in the execution of his duties.
However, the Judge was now required to turn her mind as to whether the arrest was objectively necessary. The great importance of the ‘necessity criteria’ as a safeguard to civil liberty was reflected in the comments which the Judge, Ms Recorder Davies made at paragraph 63 of her Judgment –
In applying this test, I take account of the fact that necessity is more than simply ‘desirable’ or ‘convenient’ or ‘reasonable’. It is a high bar to tighten the accountability of a police officer. Whilst I have been told, and accept, that PC Boyle is an operationally experienced officer, to uphold the necessary safeguards to protect the Claimant’s liberty, his decision requires careful scrutiny.
In addressing this question the Judge cogently noted the following important points of evidence:-
- The Claimant was in his vehicle with the door open, filming the exchange on his mobile phone, and his keys were no longer in the ignition.
- The Claimant offered PC Boyle his driving licence and then handed it over to him and invited him to check it.
- The road where the incident took place was a relatively narrow dead-end street and the likelihood of the Claimant escaping (given that he would have had to performed a 3 point turn to facilitate such a ‘getaway’) was low.
- PC Boyle escalated the situation and failed to ask the Claimant any of the Road Traffic Act questions.
The Judge went on to conclude –
73. Immediately prior to the arrest PC Boyle had the licence which was all that he needed to perform his checks. PC Boyle said that he would not run the checks until he had the Claimant’s keys. However, I find there was no legal power to require this, nor any other objective justification for his position. The Claimant declined to hand over his keys but I find he was entitled to do so. He continued to dispute whether PC Boyle had a “criminal suspicion” on him and whether PC Boyle was entitled to open his car door.
76. It is right that the Claimant remained vocal until his arrest. However, when analysing the nature of the Claimant’s challenges to PC Boyle, he was urging the officer to carry out the necessary checks. He was engaging with the officer and proffered his driving licence without being asked. He had complied with the request made to pull onto Prince Royd Road the only request he was challenging was the requirement to leave his vehicle or hand his keys over. These are both powers which the Divisional Court makes clear an officer does not have without a further ground for suspicion that an offence had been committed. In this instance, PC Boyle arrested the Claimant as he had a suspicion that he was obstructing a police officer but the obstruction according to PC Boyle was that he was failing to permit him to carry out the necessary checks. This is circuitous reasoning. The Claimant had caused his vehicle to stop for a reasonable period of time by the point of the arrest, to enable the checks to be carried out. Therefore, applying the objective test, it was not reasonable for a decision maker, in the position of PC Boyle, to have reached the view that the Claimant was potentially going to cause physical injury or damage to property. Therefore, although PC Boyle initially had a discretion to arrest the Claimant, I reach the view that it was simply not necessary.
As a result of this finding, the arrest was not objectively reasonable and Mr Ahmed succeeded fully in his claim for unlawful arrest/false imprisonment, receiving compensatory damages and legal costs.
Recorder Davies further found that it was not objectively reasonable for PC Boyle to hold the belief that the Claimant was going to drive away, hence was not reasonable to apply handcuffs to him, nor to subsequently pull the Claimant’s handcuffed arm on two occasions – the Jury having already found that no assault occurred to PC Boyle – and hence Mr Ahmed’s claim for damages for assault and battery was also successful.
The purpose of the Judge’s objective review of Police actions, particularly here with regard to the necessity grounds for arrest, is to protect the public and safeguard liberty. Recorder Davies discharged her duties diligently in that regard, and I trust that PC Boyle and his colleagues will learn a salutary lesson from this about the lawful limits of their power.
In fact, I would say that learning that lesson is an absolute necessity.
How you can help me
I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post a comment.