ABSTRACT
A failure to give reasons for an arrest will cause the arrest to be unlawful. In Christie v Leachinsky (1947), the House of Lords ruled that a person must be told of the fact of his or her arrest and the grounds for arrest, although this need not be done if the circumstances are obvious or it is difficult to communicate with the arrested person. Section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 places the requirements on a statutory basis and makes them more stringent. Subject to a person escaping before the information can be communicated, section 28 requires that:
No particular form of words need be used, but they must be in sufficient detail to enable the arrested person to understand the issue and, if possible, to deny the allegation and be released. Where it is not possible to state reasons immediately, for example, because the arrestee is reacting violently, reasons must be stated as soon as practicable. This requirement is illustrated in Director of Public Prosecutions v Hawkins (1988). In that case, a violent struggle prevented reasons being given immediately. However, when the arrestee was subdued, reasons for the arrest were still not given. The arrest became unlawful when the opportunity to give reasons arose, and reasons were not given. A sympathetic attitude to the arresting authorities was seen in Lewis v Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary (1991). There, two people were arrested and not immediately informed of the reasons for arrest. In an action for false imprisonment, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the circuit judge, that the arrests were unlawful until the reasons were given but, once the reasons were given, the arrests became lawful. However, in Ghagar v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (2000), the Court of Appeal took a strict view in relation to a motoring offence, stating that a police officer must state both the offence which a person is suspected of committing and the power to request a name and address.
