Contact Us
5 Essex Court
Temple, London, EC4Y 9AH
Phone: 020 7410 2000
Email: clerks@5essexcourt.co.uk
Jason Beer QC represented the Defendant in Richardson v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2011] EWHC 773 (QB), a case providing guidance on the practical application of the necessity of arrest requirement in s24(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Mr. Richardson, a teacher, was arrested after he voluntarily attended a police station following an assault allegation made against him by a student. The reason recorded for the necessity of arrest was "to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the person in question." An officer subsequently suggested that Mr. Richardson had to be arrested as he could otherwise disrupt the interview by attempting to leave at a moment of his choosing.
In ruling that the arrest was not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of s24(4) PACE, Slade J determined that:
a. A suspect’s offer of voluntary attendance at the police station for interview is a highly material consideration in the officer’s decision of whether an arrest is necessary;
b. The officer cannot arrest such an individual based on an unsubstantiated belief that the individual may disrupt the interview by attempting to leave. There must be grounds to believe the suspect may do so;
c. If there is no evidence that the officer considered the necessity criterion (especially any alternatives to arrest), then that in itself will breach s24(4).
Slade J.’s ruling emphasises the need for arresting officers to consider practical alternatives to arrest and to record why that arrest was necessary (beyond the generic statutory formulations).
Please click here to read more about the implications of Richardson, in particular for police law litigators.