The court considered what information had to be given to a suspect on his arrest.
Held: The question whether or not the information given is adequate has to be assessed objectively having regard to the information which is reasonably available to the officer. The person arrested is either told enough or he is not. The court set out a test for the validity of the jury’s conclusions: ‘ . . . a necessary inconsistency which would be sufficient to vitiate the trial on the basis that the jury must have based their deliberations on a false approach or otherwise been unreliable so as to justify a retrial.’
Woolf LJ said: ‘Whether or not the information which is given is adequate has to be assessed objectively having regard to the information which is reasonably available to the officer . . [Doing what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances] involves informing the person who is arrested in non-technical and not necessarily precise language of the nature of the offence said to constitute the crime for which he is being arrested.’
Purchas LJ made it clear that the question whether sufficient reasons were given for the arrest was a question of fact not law.
Purchas LJ, Mustill LJ, Woolf LJ
[1990] 1 WLR 385, [1989] EWCA Civ 7, [1990] 1 All ER 193, (1989) 90 Cr App R 250
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Christie v Leachinsky HL 25-Mar-1947
Arrested Person must be told basis of the Arrest
Police officers appealed against a finding of false imprisonment. The plaintiff had been arrested under the 1921 Act, but this provided no power of arrest (which the appellant knew). The officers might lawfully have arrested the plaintiff for the . .
Cited – Wheatley v Lodge 1971
An arrest was found to have been lawful because the officer’s explanation was sufficient even though it could not have been understood by the suspect who was deaf. A police officer was required to take reasonable steps to communicate the fact of an . .
Cited by:
Cited – Taylor (A Child Proceeding By his Mother and Litigation Friend C M Taylor) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 6-Jul-2004
The Chief Constable appealed aganst a finding that his officers had wrongfully arrested and imprisoned the claimant. The claimant was 10 years old when arrested, and complained that the officers had not properly advised him of the nature and purpose . .
Cited – Purchase v Thames Valley Police CA 11-Apr-2001
The defendant sought leave to appeal an award of damages for assault by four police officres on the claimant. The jury had been asked various questions about their conclusions on the facts. The defendant said the answers given were inconsistent.
Police, Torts – Other, Constitutional
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.198673