The court considered a claim by a woman for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention by police officers who had reasonably suspected her of burglary of the house of her former partner. In interview by the police, she denied the offence and made assertions that prompted the officers to contact the complainant to ask him to attend the police station to deal with them before continuing with the interview. Within about two hours after the complainant had been contacted and had made a statement, the police decided that there would be no further enquiries. They released the woman without charge, initially on bail, and subsequently did not charge her with any offence. On the issue whether it had been necessary, by reference to section 37(2) and (3) of PACE, to detain her in custody while they made those further enquiries.
Held: Attempts to define, or to provide synonyms for, ‘necessary’ should be avoided. In such circumstances a court: ‘should ask itself the question, in circumstances like this, whether the decision of the custody sergeant was unreasonable in the sense that no custody officer, acquainted with the ordinary use of language and applying his common sense to the competing considerations before him, could reasonably have reached that decision.
Applying that test in this case, I bear in mind that what was being suggested was a comparatively short period of detention, so that the officers, having checked with . . the complainant . . whether or not there had been, for example, one telephone call about money or whether the appellant did in fact owe him any money, might then continue the interview, or restart the interview, for the purpose they had contended they had, which was obtaining evidence relating to the offence by questioning her. Looking at the matter from that standpoint, it seems to me that the custody officer could reasonably, in the circumstances of this case, have come to the conclusion that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the appellant without being charged was necessary within the meaning of the section.’
Nourse, Beldam and Kennedy LJJ
Unreported, 22 May 1995
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 37(2) 37(3)
England and Wales
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 – Al-Fayed and others v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others CA 25-Nov-2004
The appellants appealed from dismissal of their claims for wrongful imprisonment by the respondent. Each had attended at a police station for interview on allegations of theft. They had been arrested and held pending interview and then released. Mr . .
Cited – Richardson v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 29-Mar-2011
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 – Hayes v Merseyside Police CA 29-Jul-2011
hayes_merseysideCA2011
The claimant had been arrested after a complaint of harassment. The officer then contacted the complainant who then withdrew his complaint. The officer went to visit the complainant to discuss it further. On his return the claimant was released from . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.198674
