Guy VassallAdams

1
Guy Vassall-Adams
2
Mondelly v Met Police

• R(Mondelly) v Cssr of Met 2006 EWHC 2370
  (Admin)
• Challenge to a caution for possession of cannabis
  
• 29th January 2004 three new developments
• Cannabis re-classified to a Class C drug
• New policy - police officer who finds person with
  cannabis for personal use should not arrest
  unless aggravating features apply
• Simple possession of cannabis an arrestable
  offence
• Cs case caution was in breach of the policy
  and the polices standing orders
• Standing orders said police officers retained a
  discretion

3
Mondelly v Met Police

• Admin Court divided
• Majority held that the policy could not override
  the police officers discretion to exercise a
  lawful power of arrest
• Majority concerned that if allowed JR it would
  amount in effect to a prohibition on prosecutions
  for simple possession
• That would be inconsistent with the new arrest
  power
• Walker J
• The caution clearly contravened the policy for no
  good reason
• Unjust that C should be in a worse position now
  than we would have been had the policy been
  applied properly
• Officers should have confined themselves to
  taking the cannabis and giving C a warning

4
C v CC of A Police and A Magistrates Court

• R(C) v CC of A Police 2006 EWHC 2352 (Admin)
• C was a banker suspected of child pornography
  offences
• Arrested May 2006 bailed until Dec 06
• No final decision on whether to prosecute him
• C challenged
• 1. The decision to issue the search warrant
• 2. The decision to arrest him
• 3. The continuance of the investigation
• Underhill J prepared to consider all three in
  spite of previous decisions suggesting private
  law claims more appropriate

5
C v CC of A Police and A Magistrates Court

• 1. Judge critical both of information and warrant
  careless
• But decisions by police to seek a warrant and
  court to grant it were not unreasonable on the
  material before them
• 2. Judge unwilling to decide whether the decision
  to arrest was lawful
• Would have done so if (1) evidence clear and
  complete and (2) reasons for urgency
• 3. Judge said Court would only intervene to close
  down an ongoing investigation on the basis that
  no prosecution was likely to result in an
  exceptional case
• Judge felt he did not have all relevant info and
  it would blur the role of the court and the
  prosecuting authorities for him to step in
• Judge told police to take the remaining steps as
  quickly as possible

6
Dennis v IPCC

• R(Nicola Dennis) v IPCC, Admin Court, Decn of
  6.5.08
• Police ARU forced C out of home, detained her,
  cuffed her and searched her
• Wholly innocent member of public
• Police investigation of complaint no case to
  answer
• Appeal to IPCC upheld in part words of advice to
  1 officer for cuffing C and placing her on the
  floor
• Findings of Admin Court (Saunders J)
• 1. Caseworker misunderstood the findings of fact
  another officer had done the cuffing and
  detention
• 2. Caseworker failed to consider possible
  justifications
• 3. Caseworkers reasoning was confusing and
  contradictory

7
Dennis v IPCC

• Guidance re IPCC decisions
• Important that IPCC conclusions on a complaint
  are clear and the reasons for those decisions can
  be readily understood by the complainant, police
  and police authority (para 23)
• on a proper understanding it may well have
  been that the appeal would have been dismissed
  rather than allowed in part (para 43)
• Is IPCC functus officio after it has given its
  decision?
• Where IPCC has made and promulgated a decision on
  appeal, it has no power to vary it by reason of
  further representations (para 54)
• No concluded view on power to change a decision
  on dispensing with an investigation

8
S v CC of South Yorkshire

• R(S) v CC of South Yorkshire 2004 UKHL 39
• Two claimants both arrested and charged and
  fingerprints and DNA samples taken.
• One acquitted at trial second case discontinued.
• Police retained fingerprints and DNA under s.64
  PACE 1984
• JR challenging lawfulness of policy of retention
• Article 8 disproportionate interference with
  private life
• Article 14 unlawful discrimination vis-à-vis
  persons arrested but not charged

9
S v CC of South Yorkshire

• Lord Steyn gave the leading judgment in the HL
• Article 8 engaged? any interference is very
  modest
• Policy was proportionate
• Fingerprints and samples kept for a limited
  purpose
• Require a comparator to be of any use
• Not made public
• Identity not discernible to untutored eye
• Vs resultant expansion of database by the
  retention confers enormous advantages in the
  fight against serious crime
• Requiring police to take decisions in each
  individual case unrealistic and impractical
• Article 14 fair to make a distinction between
  persons charged and those not charged. Not a
  genuine comparator.

10
Laporte v CC of Gloucestershire

• R(Laporte) v CC of Gloucestershire 2006 UKHL 55
• Protest against Iraq war planned by
  Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors at RAF
  Fairford
• Three coaches stopped by police on journey from
  London
• Protestors searched found to have various items
  like hard hats
• Police identified 8 Wombles
• Police then escorted coach back to London
• Cs case police actions violated Articles 10
  and 11 ECHR
• QBD and CA searches and return to London
  legitimate but detention on the coach unlawful

11
Laporte v CC of Gloucestershire

• Police could only arrest for breach of peace
  where such a breach was taking place or it was
  imminent
• The police could not take action short of arrest
  they reasonably judged to be reasonable to
  prevent a breach of the peace which was not
  sufficiently imminent to justify arrest
• There had been no indication of any imminent
  breach when the coaches were detained an
  interference with lawful assembly that was not
  prescribed by law
• Majority polices actions were premature and
  indiscriminate and a disproportionate
  interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR
• The arrests were unlawful

12
G v CC of West Yorkshire

• R(G) v CC of West Yorkshire Police 2008 EWCA
  Civ 28
• C (16) arrested for assault ABH and bailed
• On return date gave NC comment interview
• Solicitor told police there was sufficient
  evidence to charge so they should charge or
  release him
• Officer refused and detained him for 3 hours to
  consult CPS in accordance with guidance issued by
  DPP
• JR of decision to detain

13
G v CC of West Yorkshire

• Admin Court dismissed application
• Court of Appeal allowed appeal
• Each and every detention must by justified by
  clear, unequivocal, legal authority (para 29)
• Section 37 of PACE 1984 set out all the
  alternatives available to a custody officer who
  had determined that he had sufficient evidence to
  charge an arrested person
• There was no power to detain a person in order to
  consult the CPS without admitting the suspect to
  bail
• Such a power could not be inferred from the DPP
  guidance

14
Green v PCA

• R(Green) v PCA 2004 UKHL 6
• Complaint arising from police officer knocking C
  off bicycle
• Officer guilty of driving without due care and
  attention
• Initial decision of PCA no recommendation for
  disciplinary proceedings
• Decision under review
• PCA invited C to submit further evidence
• C requested all witness statements and documents
  made available to PCA so he could make effective
  representations
• PCA refused
• Sole issue whether PCA required to disclose the
  information under s.80 of the Police Act 1996

15
Green v PCA

• Moses J in Admin Court all eyewitness accounts
  should be disclosed to C. CA reversed decision.
• On appeal to HL Lord Rodger giving leading
  judgment
• S.80(1)(a) of Act disclosure permitted only so
  far as may be necessary for the proper disclosure
  of the functions of the authority
• Functions defined by s.76 of the Act
• Any disclosure in contravention of s.80 a
  criminal offence
• A somewhat unpromising starting point for what
  Mr Gordon contended was a general duty on the
  authority to disclose information to
  complainants
• Not necessary to disclose the source material
  effective representations possible in relation to
  the provisional decision
• N.B. IPCC now has duty to disclose under PRA 2002
  s.20

16
Other recent examples

• R(IPCC) v CC of West Mercia 2007 EWHC 1035
  (Admin)
• Successful JR challenging decision of WMP to stay
  disciplinary proceedings against an officer for
  abuse of process
• Kay v Cssr of Met Police 2006 EWHC 1536 (Admin)
  
• JR on whether the Critical Mass cycle rides in
  London were required to give the police prior
  notice under s.11 POA 1996
• R(A) v South Yorks Police and CPS 2007 EWHC
  1261 (Admin)
• JR challenging decision to charge juveniles
  instead of giving them final warnings