This week’s blog post is intended to highlight the crucial importance of “necessity” in any lawful arrest. The vast majority of arrests carried out by the Police are “summary arrests” under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) i.e arrests carried out by the Police under an Officer’s individual authority, and without the authorisation of a Court Warrant.
For the Police to deprive you of your liberty in the absence of a Warrant, they must not only honestly and reasonably suspect you of a criminal offence (a relatively low bar if another person has made an accusation against you, even if it is false) but also be able to rely upon one of the 10 justifications set out in Section 24, and expounded in Code G of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act, as to why the suspected offence requires your arrest in order to be investigated, arrest being only a means to an end, not an end in itself (it is not an interim punishment, an early incarceration if you like):
24Arrest without warrant: constables
(4) [The power of summary arrest]… is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.
(5)The reasons are—
(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b)correspondingly as regards the person’s address;
(c)to prevent the person in question—
(i)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii)suffering physical injury;
(iii)causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv)committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or
(v)causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d)to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e)to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
(f)to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.
It is important, therefore, that when Police officers default to ‘arrest mode’ without sufficient critical thinking, failing in their duty to consider the necessity question and alternatives to arrest – that they are held to account. Suing the Police in such circumstances may not only bring you compensation and some peace of mind; it may help to ensure that fewer people in the future are subject to unnecessary arrests.
The test for determining whether an arrest was necessary under PACE Section 24 was summarised by the Court of Appeal in Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside [2012] 1 WLR 517 [at paragraph 40] as follows:
“(1) the policeman must honestly believe that arrest is necessary, for one or more identified section 24(5) reasons, and
(2) his decision must be one which, objectively reviewed afterwards according to the information known to him at the time, is held to have been made on reasonable grounds”.
The Court of Appeal then cited with approval a passage in Alexander and others [2009] NIQB 20 [2009] NIQB 20 at paragraph 19:
“Given the scope of the decision available to a constable contemplating arrest, we do not consider that it is necessary that he interrogate a person as to whether he will attend a police station voluntarily. But he must, in our judgment, at least consider whether having a suspect attend in this way is a practical alternative. The decision whether a particular course is necessary involves, we believe, at least some thought about the different options. In many instances this will require no more than a cursory consideration, but it is difficult to envisage how it could be said that a constable has reasonable grounds for believing it necessary to arrest if he does not make at least some evaluation as to whether voluntary attendance would achieve the objective that he wishes to secure”.
In Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis v MR [2019] EWHC 888 (QB) [at paragraph 47], the High Court stressed that the “test of necessity” for summary arrest is more than what is simply desirable, convenient or reasonable. It is, quite rightly, a “high bar, introduced for all offences in 2005 to tighten the accountability of police officers”.
Failing the Test: An Unnecessary Arrest
At all material times, my client Stevie was in an on/off relationship with a woman whom I will identify for the purposes of this blog post as “Samantha”.
Following a report which Samantha made to the Police in mid- January 2022, Stevie became aware that Cambridgeshire Police wanted to speak to him.
Sensibly and proactively, Stevie phoned the investigating Officer, PC Dickinson, and advised that he would voluntarily attend Peterborough Police Station at 10.00am on 8 March 2022 .
By this time, Stevie had been back in his relationship with Samantha for around three to four weeks. Sam advised him that whilst they were broken up she had reported him to the Police for alleged harassment, and this was evidently what they wanted to speak to him about.
The crime report was therefore several months old, and significantly stale by the time my client attended Peterborough Custody Unit as arranged. To his shock however, matters did not unfold as amicably as he had reasonably anticipated.
PC Dickinson met Stevie in the waiting area and led him into the Custody Unit whereupon, the Officer told Stevie that he was under arrest for Harassment and cautioned him, for allegedly having pestered Samantha with messages and for turning up at her house unanounced.
Stevie was then taken before the Custody Sergeant, PS Hallam.
The reason arrest was ‘necessary’ was said to be for a “prompt and effective investigation – to interview – as thought unlikely person would attend voluntarily. PACE Code G 2.9 (e)(i)(a). To protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question. PACE Code G2.9(d)”
At 10.16, Stevie’s detention was authorised. The grounds for detention were said to be “to secure or preserve evidence, to obtain evidence, to obtain evidence by questioning.” That, of course, would be the questioning which he had shown his full willingness to participate in by reaching out to the Police in the first place.
Stevie then faced the indignity of being searched and having his possessions seized.
PS Hallam then completed a Risk Assessment of my client, in which he recorded the following observations to the pro forma questions-
Does the detainee appear injured or unwell? NO
Does the detainee need First Aid or medical treatment? NO
Does the detainee appear to have taken or be under the influence
of alcohol, drugs or any other substance ? NO
Does the detainee have any indications of self harm? NO
PS Hallam then sought to obtain Stevie’s own answers to the risk- assessment. In response, and in protest at the way he had in effect been ambushed with an unnecessary arrest, Stevie exercised the ‘right to silence’ which he had just been informed was his post-arrest (“You do not have to say anything…”) and refused to respond.
The form of Police misconduct which Stevie was experiencing – unnecessary arrest – now collided with another form about which I have written before – the draconian misuse of strip search powers, not to ensure a detainee’s safety but to punish them for being perceived as disobedient or disrespectful by the Custody Sergeant (most often in a basic refusal to answer questions). For PS Hallam now threatened Stevie that should he fail to answer the risk-assessment questions, or to provide his name (which of course, the Police already knew) he would be taken to a cell and have his clothing forcibly removed.
Stevie protested that this was uncalled for as he was no risk to anyone, and he would not remove his clothes. Throughout his dealings with PC Dickinson and PS Hallam, Stevie had remained calm and polite. He was in good health, physically and mentally and clearly not a risk to himself and/or others. His reticence at answering the Sergeant’s pro-forma questions was, I would say, perfectly understandable given that he should not have been arrested in the first place.
Unfortunately, this cut no ice with the Custody Sergeant, who carried out his threat. Stevie was escorted to a cell by at least five officers and ordered to strip naked.
An Unnecessary Strip Search
Lest we forget, this was a man suspected of a relatively low-level offence, who had contacted the Police himself and voluntarily attended the station to be interviewed.
Stevie was understandably shocked and upset by this degrading treatment, but did remove his hooded top, belt, trainers and socks and shoes. This was not enough to satisfy his captors however, and nor would it be if the purpose of the exercise was not to protect Stevie from self-harm (its ostensible justification) but in fact to punish him for disobedience and assert power over him. Perhaps the words of the Police caution should be amended to: “You have the right to remain silent, but if you do, you won’t remain in your clothes.”
Stevie was told to hand over the rest of his clothes, or they would be taken from him by force.
In addition to the five officers in the cell with him, Stevie was by this time aware of other officers gathered in the hallway outside, including a female officer.
Again, Stevie asserted that he was no risk to anyone and ‘locked’ his hands together to try to protect himself from being stripped, whereupon multiple Officers took hold of him and pressure was applied to his thumbs and his arms were forced apart and behind his back. He was then handcuffed to the rear.
Stevie was then forced face down on the floor of the cell – remember that this was supposedly to ‘safeguard’ him – whereupon an Officer kneeled on his back and his t-shirt and then jeans and pants were forcibly removed.
Throughout this degrading ordeal, Stevie experienced significant pain and discomfort.
Once Stevie was naked, a pair of shorts were dropped on top of him, and the officers vacated the cell. This was later described in the Custody Record as Stevie being “covered with safety clothes to protect his dignity.”
Stevie put on the pants which he found were dirty and too large and kept falling down. He had nothing to wear on his top. He felt humiliated and disgusted, and was experiencing pain in his hands and arms, particularly his right thumb. He requested the attention of a medical professional; once again it was Police ‘safeguarding’ that proved to have been the real threat to one of my clients, and shorthand for an unjustified assault.
Stevie’s ordeal was now about to escalate further, however, as the Police having used one set of powers to humiliate and injure him, would now use another to criminalise him.
An Unnecessary Drug Test
Whilst Stevie waited in his cell for the interview which he had voluntarily presented himself for hours earlier, Temporary Inspector Jackman authorised a drugs test upon him. His grounds were said to be that – “the detainee has been arrested for stalking and harassment (DA related). He has a history of drug offences. I suspect the use of drugs contributed to the commission of the offence. Drug use can cause paranoia in many cases, stalking behaviour is exasperated by paranoid thoughts towards the victim and relating to the following non-trigger offence(s) Other – not listed – PNC recordable, harassment, PNC recordable.”
For the record, Stevie has no “history of drug offences”.
For the time being, and unaware of this bizarre decision, Stevie was interviewed by PC Dickinson and DS Thind and then returned to his incarceration. The interview lasted only 20 minutes, after which the Custody Record was noted to the effect that the Police were aware that Stevie and Samantha had now reconciled and there had never been any violence or assaults between them.
Approximately three hours after this interview, Stevie was brought out of his cell and obliged to give fingerprints and to be photographed.
It was now that he was informed that an Inspector had authorised the taking of a drug sample from him; morally outraged at this latest insult after all the other mistreatment which had been piled upon him from unnecessary arrest, to strip search and physical injury, Stevie refused to provide a sample. He was, of course, entirely ‘clean’ but this was a point of principle which he wanted to hold on to, an act of resistance against any further shredding of his dignity.
Finally therefore, at 17.34 that day, Stevie was charged with failing to provide a sample for the purpose of ascertaining whether he had a Class A drug in his body. He was granted police bail to attend Peterborough Magistrates’ Court in April.
And the other offence – the stale report of harassment which Stevie had originally attended in order to address and clear up? He was “refused charge” for that, i.e it was dropped. His property was returned and he was allowed to leave the Police station.
Winning Compensation
Stevie subsequently attended Peterborough Magistrates Court where he proudly pleaded not guilty.
The case was adjourned for Trial. Then, just weeks before the Trial, Stevie was advised that the Crown Prosecution Service had discontinued the proceedings against him. I can only presume that this was because the prosecutors on reviewing the evidence had strong cause to doubt the bona fides of the Inspector’s decision to ‘drug test’ Stevie and suspected, as I did, that like the strip search it was just another excuse to humiliate a recalcitrant detainee with one of the many uses of power Police have in their bureaucratic arsenal.
He was at last the free and innocent man he should have been within a short time of his voluntary attendance at the Station. Instead, one act of Police abuse of power in the form of an unnecessary arrest had kicked off a catalogue of others, causing Stevie emotional stress and physical injury. Had the Police proceeded with a voluntary interview with Stevie, he might have been out of the Station as early as 10.30am that morning, with the matter cleared up and the Police able to devote their resources to far more serious matters; instead considerable Police energy was spent on, effectively, tormenting Stevie with one act of humiliation after another for over 7 hours, before he was released with the threat of a criminal conviction hanging over his head for months.
Stevie’s determination to stand his ground against Police abuse of power led him, after his exoneration in the criminal proceedings, to instruct me to bring a civil claim against Cambridgeshire Police, in which I was more than happy to act after analysing the facts of his case.
I am pleased to confirm that after receiving my detailed letter of claim on behalf of Stevie, whilst they did not admit liability, the Police did agree to compensate Stevie in the sum of £15,000 plus his legal costs – a considerable settlement which speaks for itself.
An absolutely necessary settlement, in fact.
You must be logged in to post a comment.