Matthew Holdcroft represented the Defendant, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and Anne Studd represented the Interested Parties (the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and individual officers) in the case of R (on the application of Rutherford) v. Independent Police Complaints Commission (22 October 2010).

The Claimant, Joseph Rutherford (18), was the driver of a vehicle registered to his mother, with his brother (17) as the passenger. Two non-uniformed officers, suspecting the vehicle was stolen, requested it to stop by engaging their unmarked police vehicle’s siren and blue lights.  Although the officers showed their warrant cards, the Claimant believed them to be impostors and struck one of the officers. The Claimant was cautioned for assaulting a constable in the execution of duty. The Investigating Officer rejected the complaint filed with the police by the Claimant’s family. The family appealed to the IPCC, alleging that the Investigating Officer ought to have explicitly asked the officers as to which power they relied on to stop the vehicle. The IPCC’s refusal of that appeal was subject to judicial review.

Ouseley J. refused the application, holding that an officer’s exercise of a police power is not contingent on the legal identification of the precise statutory provision or common law power being relied upon. An act is not unlawful merely because the officer misidentified a provision, provided he/she had legitimate grounds to exercise that power and follows the procedural requirements. Ouseley J. confirmed that non-uniformed officers have a common law power to request a vehicle to stop, but even if that initial stop is unlawful, the lawfulness of subsequent actions (such as search or arrest) would be evaluated on their own merits.

Police practitioners can breathe a sigh of relief at Ouseley J.’s ruling, which adopts a common sense approach not previously explicitly made in domestic case law. Nonetheless, it remains good practice for IPCC and police investigators to ask officers which power they relied on. Ouseley J. made costs awards in favour of both the Defendant and the Interested Parties.

Anne Studd and Matthew Holdcroft have extensive experience in police law and judicial review of decisions related to the police.