Assault on constables – Police powers and duties – Powers of entry – Acting on execution of duty

Syed v Director of Public Prosecutions: DC (Mr Justice Collins, Mr Justice Silber): 13 January 2010

The appellant (S) appealed by way of case stated against his conviction for assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty.

Two police officers had attended S’s house following a telephone call from a neighbour reporting a disturbance. When they arrived, there was no sign of a disturbance. They spoke to S who informed them that he had had a verbal argument with his brother. When the police enquired further, S became evasive and tried to end the conversation. The officers explained that they had a right to enter the premises pursuant to section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 if they were in fear for the welfare of persons within the house. S did not accept that the police had a right to enter. He spat in one officer’s face and headbutted the other. S was charged with an offence contrary to section 89 of the Police Act 1996.

The magistrates convicted S, having found that given his evasiveness, concern for the welfare of people in the property was sufficient to meet the requirements of section 17, so that the police were entitled to enter by force. The question for the determination of the High Court was whether the magistrates’ court could properly have concluded that the police were acting in the execution of their duty in purporting to act under section 17 and use force to enter where, among other things, (i) there was no sign that anyone at the property had sustained any injury; (ii) there were no complaints of injuries or visible signs of damage or complaint of damage from the occupants; iii) S’s explanation that there had been a verbal argument was not contradicted; and (iv) the officers had no information to say that that was not the case.

Held: It was plain from the wording of section 17, in particular section 17(1)(e), that parliament had intended that the right of entry by force without warrant should be limited to cases where it was apprehended that something serious was otherwise likely to occur or had occurred on the premises. That included a degree of apprehension of serious bodily injury, Baker v Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 299 (Admin), [2009] 173 JP 215 applied. The test applied in the present case, that of concern for the welfare of someone within the premises, was not sufficient to justify an entry within the terms of section 17(1)(e). That was too low a test. When entering S’s house, the police officers had therefore not been acting in the execution of their duty and, while S’s behaviour might have been improper, the charge against him was incorrectly laid. The answer to the question raised was in the negative and S’s conviction could not stand.

Appeal allowed.

Lucy Tapper (instructed by Reeds (Oxford)) for the appellant: no appearance or representation for the respondent.