Holgate-Mohammed v Duke [1984] WLR 660 House of Lords: A detective constable, exercising his powers under s2(4) of the CLA 1967, arrested the plaintiff on suspicion that she had stolen jewellery and took her to a police station where she was questioned. She was not charged with an offence and was released from detention within six hours of her arrest. The plaintiff bought an action in the county court against the Chief Constable for damages for wrongful arrest. The judge found that the detective constable had had reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of having committed an arrestable offence and that the period of detention was not excessive but, because the constable had decided not to interview her under caution but to subject her to the greater pressure of arrest and detention so as to induce a confession, there had been a wrongful exercise of the power of arrest. The plaintiff was awarded £1,000 damages. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Chief Constable. On the plaintiffs appeal: Held that the Wednesbury principles were to be applied in determining, for the purpose of founding an action at common law for false imprisonment, whether the discretion conferred upon a constable by s2(4) of the CLA 1967 to arrest a person without a warrant had been exercised lawfully, namely whether the discretion had been exercised in good faith and whether irrelevant matters had been excluded : consideration. applied. [1970] considered. Dismissing appeal, since an arrestable offence committed and constable reasonable cause suspecting plaintiff guilty offence,

doi:10.4324/9781843143451-97

Chapter

Holgate-Mohammed v Duke [1984] WLR 660 House of Lords: A detective constable, exercising his powers under s2(4) of the CLA 1967, arrested the plaintiff on suspicion that she had stolen jewellery and took her to a police station where she was questioned. She was not charged with an offence and was released from detention within six hours of her arrest. The plaintiff bought an action in the county court against the Chief Constable for damages for wrongful arrest. The judge found that the detective constable had had reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of having committed an arrestable offence and that the period of detention was not excessive but, because the constable had decided not to interview her under caution but to subject her to the greater pressure of arrest and detention so as to induce a confession, there had been a wrongful exercise of the power of arrest. The plaintiff was awarded £1,000 damages. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Chief Constable. On the plaintiffs appeal: Held that the Wednesbury principles were to be applied in determining, for the purpose of founding an action at common law for false imprisonment, whether the discretion conferred upon a constable by s2(4) of the CLA 1967 to arrest a person without a warrant had been exercised lawfully, namely whether the discretion had been exercised in good faith and whether irrelevant matters had been excluded

Chapter

Holgate-Mohammed v Duke [1984] WLR 660 House of Lords: A detective constable, exercising his powers under s2(4) of the CLA 1967, arrested the plaintiff on suspicion that she had stolen jewellery and took her to a police station where she was questioned. She was not charged with an offence and was released from detention within six hours of her arrest. The plaintiff bought an action in the county court against the Chief Constable for damages for wrongful arrest. The judge found that the detective constable had had reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of having committed an arrestable offence and that the period of detention was not excessive but, because the constable had decided not to interview her under caution but to subject her to the greater pressure of arrest and detention so as to induce a confession, there had been a wrongful exercise of the power of arrest. The plaintiff was awarded £1,000 damages. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Chief Constable. On the plaintiffs appeal: Held that the Wednesbury principles were to be applied in determining, for the purpose of founding an action at common law for false imprisonment, whether the discretion conferred upon a constable by s2(4) of the CLA 1967 to arrest a person without a warrant had been exercised lawfully, namely whether the discretion had been exercised in good faith and whether irrelevant matters had been excluded

ABSTRACT

Lord Diplock: ...Your Lordships are not concerned with rights of arrest at common law for it is not disputed that an arrestable offence had been committed, and what Detective Constable Offin was purporting to exercise was the statutory power of arrest without warrant conferred upon him by subss (4) and (6) of s 2 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Subsection (6) confers a right of entry on premises by a constable for the purpose of exercising the power of arrest conferred upon him by sub-s (4) which reads as follows: '(4) Where a constable, with reasonable cause, suspects that an arrestable offence has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.' The word'arrest' in s 2 is a term of art. First, it should be noted that arrest is a continuing act; it starts with the arrestor taking a persons into his custody [sic by action or words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrestor's control], and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or, having been

brought before a magistrate, is remanded in custody by the magistrate's judicial act. In practice since the creation of organised police forces during the course of the 19th century, an arrested person upon being taken into custody by a constable is brought to a police station and it is there that he is detained until he is either brought before a magistrate or released whether unconditionally or upon police bail. In modern conditions any other way of dealing with an arrested person once he has been taken into custody would be impracticable; and s 43 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, providing for grant of bail by the police, is drafted on the assumption that this is what will be done. Strictly speaking, the arrestor may change from time to time during a continuous period of custody since the arrestor is the person who at any particular time is preventing the arrested person from removing himself from custody; but although this may be important in a case where the initial arrest has been made by a person who is not a constable (a 'citizen's arrest'), it is without practical significance in the common case of arrest by a constable and detention in police custody at a police station, since s 48(1) of the Police Act 1964 makes the chief constable of the police area vicariously liable for torts committed by members of the force that he commands in the performance or purported performance of their duties as constables.