References: [1984] 1 AC 437, [1984] 2 WLR 660
Coram: Lord Diplock
Ratio:A police officer had purported to arrest the plaintiff under the 1967 Act, suspecting her of theft. After interview she was released several hours later without charge. She sought damages alleging wrongful arrest. The judge had reasonable grounds for suspicion, and that the period of detention was not excessive. However the use of an arrest to place her under pressure was improper. On appeal the chief constable succeeded, the court saying that the question was whether the decision to arrest was Wednesbury unreasonable; was it made in good faith, and did it take into account any irrelevant factors.
Held: The idea that a suspect might more readily confess at a police station under arrest was a proper consideration, and given the reasonable cause for suspicion, the arrest was lawful.
Lord Diplock set out the common law principles as to what amounted to an arrest. Arrest is a continuing act. It starts with the arrester taking a person into his custody, either by action or by words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester’s control, and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or remanded in custody by a judicial act. The mere act of taking a person into custody does not constitute an arrest unless the person knows, either at the time when he is taken into custody or as soon thereafter as it is reasonably practical to inform him, upon what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is being arrested.
The Wednesbury principles are applicable not only in proceedings for judicial review but also for the purpose of founding a cause of action at common law for trespass by false imprisonment.
Statutes: Criminal Law Act 1967 2(4)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Shields -v- Merseyside Police CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 1281)
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for assault and false imprisonment. The officer arresting her wrongly believed that she had already been arrested, and it was said that he could not have gone through the steps necessary for an . . - Cited – Lumba (WL) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 12, Bailii Summary, SC, UKSC 2010/0062, UKSC 2010/0063, SC Summary)
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . . - Cited – Richardson -v- The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 773 (QB), [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 1)
The claimant, a teacher, said he had been unlawfully arrested and detained after an allegation of assault from a pupil. Having attended the police station voluntarily, he said that the circumstances did not satisfy the required precondition that an . . - Cited – Kambadzi (previously referred to as SK (Zimbabwe)) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department SC (2011] 1 WLR 1299, Bailii, [2011] UKSC 23, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2009/0022, SC Summary, SC)
The respondent had held the claimant in custody, but had failed to follow its own procedures. The claimant appealed against the rejection of his claim of false imprisonment. He had overstayed his immigration leave, and after convictions had served a . . - Cited – Haile -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest SC (UKSC 2014/0185, SC Video, [2016] 1 All ER 579, [2015] 1 AC 1471, Bailii, [2015] UKSC 34, [2015] WLR(D) 234, [2015] 1 AC 1471, [2015] HLR 24, [2015] PTSR 784, [2015] 2 WLR 1441, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary)
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 28-Jun-16
Ref: 426031
