Guernsey Law Reports 2007–08 GLR Note 28
ALLAN v. LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN
ROYAL COURT (Finch, Lieut. Bailiff): December 2nd, 2008
Criminal Law—assault—excessive force by police officer—use of handcuffs
The appellant, a uniformed police officer on patrol in the early evening, suspected that a car might be being driven under the influence of drink. It failed to stop when he put on his blue warning lights and he was forced to chase it and stop it by pulling in front of it. He did not tell the driver (Mrs. H) why she had been stopped and ordered her, rather abruptly, to leave her car and get into the police van. He did not tell her that he was proposing to give her a breath test. Mrs. H repeatedly said that she had done nothing wrong and became increasingly distressed, almost to the point of hysteria. She refused to obey the appellant’s instructions to leave her car and get into the van, whereupon he handcuffed her, though did not formally arrest her. He was charged with common assault.
Held: The appellant was guilty of assault, since he did not intend or purport to arrest Mrs. H, and was not acting in a way which was otherwise legally justified. His handcuffing her simply for reasons of non-cooperation went beyond generally acceptable standards of conduct—which for a police officer were to be judged by the same criteria as would be applied to the conduct of any citizen—and became unlawful (Collins v. Wilcock (1984), 79 Cr. App. R. 229, dicta of Robert Goff, L.J. applied; Wood v. D.P.P., [2008] EWHC 1056 (Admin), dicta of Latham, L.J. applied).
The learned Lieutenant Bailiff appended to his judgment the “Nine Principles of Policing” prepared by Rowan and Mayne, the first Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, which had been published in 1829, and issued to every recruit. It was his view that they remained of enduring value and observing them would prevent further undesirable cases of this nature coming before the courts:
“1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”
2009
Law Report
None
Guernsey Law Reports 2007–08 GLR Note 28