Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police

[David Swarbrick]

If by saying 'with respect' you mean you disagree, then I cannot see where
you disagree. I say quite assuredly that someone should carry the can for
putting duff information on a computer which leads to an arrest.

I also agree that a police officer should (and he does) always exercise some
dicretion.  nevertheless, when his computer tells him the person he has just
stopped is wanted for armed robbery, he cannot be expected to ask the
detained person to wait in his car while he sets off on a fruitless three
hour quest to find the source of the information. He arrests him. He has no
way, and never will have, of validating the information at the point of
arrest.


--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor
david@swarb.freeuk.com www.swarb.co.uk Tel 01484 384767 Mob 0779 681 0373


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Mary Kirwan
> Sent: 19 February 2001 08:57
> To: 'ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk'
> Subject: RE: Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police
>
>
> David,
>
> With respect,
>
> In several jurisdictions in the US, the cop who stops you for driving can
> print you and then access through a PDA style device the rap
> sheets/prints/wanted records of felons and grab you on the spot if you fit
> the bill. I am not suggesting that known/wanted felons should be able to
> strowl off on their merry way, but that entries that do not in themselves
> justify an arrest, or may or may not justify an arrest (based on the
> reasonableness of the source of the information) should always be open to
> challenge. Needless to say an officer must often use his/her judgement to
> effect an arrest and is given fair latitude in doing so- that
> however is not
> carte blanche and must be open to challenge to avoid spurious grounds,
> racial judgements, etc. Where, for instance, a wiretap order is granted in
> many jurisdictions that I am familiar with, the information on which the
> affidavit grounding the application for the order is made, is open to very
> tight scrutiny at pre trial motions, which I believe to be the correct
> process, to avoid over reaching, wishful thinking, plain erroneous
> information and the like. Checks and balances to ensure that an
> accused can
> challenge the basis of the information on which he is charged is
> fundamental
> to the right to make full answer and defence.
>
> Mary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Swarbrick [mailto:david@swarb.freeuk.com]
> Sent: 17 February 2001 00:21
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: RE: Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police
>
>
> It must be right that a constable can only act on the basis of the request
> he is given.
>
> The answer is to make answerable the person who puts the
> information on the
> computer. The register shows lists of people wanted for interview and who
> should be arrested and held for questioning if encountered. There
> is no way
> at all that a policeman who stops some one for speeding at say two in the
> morning  can assess whether the constable who said two months ago
> in a file
> three hundred miles away that the driver is wanted for murder,  had good
> reason for saying so. It is just silly to expect him to make that
> assessment.
>
> That is not to say that someone should not be responsible. The Chief
> constable of the officer who places the request should be. The case seems
> entirely sensible and the only possible way this can be done.
>
> --
> David Swarbrick, Solicitor
> david@swarb.freeuk.com www.swarb.co.uk Tel +44(0)1484 384767 Mob 0779 681
> 0373
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Mary Kirwan
> > Sent: 16 February 2001 09:32
> > To: 'ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk'
> > Subject: RE: Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police
> >
> >
> > Quite bizarre.
> >
> > The entire issue should revolve around whether the belief was
> reasonable,
> > which has to involve a consideration of the information in the computer
> > record. If it said 'Johnny likes to wear a red hat', that I
> presume would
> > not suffice to found a reasonably held suspicion of likely wrongdoing..
> >
> > Even if the information in the record was highly sensitive, enough of it
> > would have to be revealed to properly ground the suspicion, or
> the arrest
> > should not stand - the need to uphold the legality of the arrest
> > would have
> > to yield to the necessity to protect the sensitive information.
> Cant say I
> > understand the argument here, even at a stretch.
> >
> > Mary Kirwan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Donald ramsbottom [mailto:donald@ramsbottom.co.uk]
> > Sent: 16 February 2001 07:04
> > To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > Subject: Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police
> >
> >
> > From Yesterdays Times Law report. An entry on the Police computer
> > justified
> > the arrest there was no other evidence of wrong doing. This
> opens a whole
> > can of worms I think. Selfmade "evidence" to justify arrest
> > springs to mind
> > among others. Anyhow, as ever, do not read if not interested.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police
> > Before Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Longmore
> > Judgment January 16, 2001
> > Where on the basis of information on the police national computer
> > a police constable made an arrest which later formed the basis of
> > an action for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, the critical
> > issue in determining the lawfulness of the arrest was whether the
> > arresting constable had acted reasonably in acting on the
> > information.
> >
> > It was not relevant to consider whether the officer who made the
> > computer entry had had reasonable grounds for placing the
> > information on the computer.
> >
> > The Court of Appeal so held, allowing an appeal by the Chief
> > Constable of Staffordshire Police against the judgment of Judge
> > Edwards, QC, at Chester County Court on June 22, 2000 for the
> > claimant, Gary Hough, with damages of £10,000 plus £600
> > interest for wrongful arrest, assault and false imprisonment.
> >
> > The claimant was a passenger in a car stopped by a police patrol
> > car on a motorway because of a damaged windscreen. A routine
> > check on the police computer revealed an entry concerning the
> > owner of the car, warning officers that the occupant might be
> > armed with a firearm.
> >
> > An armed response team was summoned and the claimant was
> > arrested, handcuffed, searched and taken to a police station. No
> > weapon was found on his person or in the vehicle.
> >
> > Later the claimant was released from custody. He brought an
> > action for damages.
> >
> > Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
> > provides:
> >
> > "(6) Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that
> > an arrestable offence has been committed, he may arrest without a
> > warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to
> > be guilty of an offence."
> >
> > Mr Mark Turner, QC, for the chief constable; the claimant did not
> > appear and was not represented.
> >
> > LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN said that having accepted
> > that the arresting officer genuinely suspected the claimant to be
> > guilty of the unlawful possession of a firearm, the judge turned to
> > the critical question: whether, considered objectively, reasonable
> > grounds existed for the constable's suspicion.
> >
> > The judge concluded that the burden of proof went back to the
> > stage of the officer who placed the entry on the police national
> > computer.
> >
> > It was the chief constable's central contention on the appeal that
> > the evidence of the officer who placed the information was in fact
> > immaterial: the only relevant information was that in the mind of the
> > arresting officer.
> >
> > The judge was much influenced by an obiter dictum of Mr Justice
> > Forbes in Millington v Commissioner of Police of the
> > Metropolis (The Times May 28, 1983) referred to in a footnote
> > in Clayton and Tomlinson's publication Civil Actions Against the
> > Police (2nd edition (1992) pp175-176).
> >
> > It was implicit in that approach that, depending on the
> > circumstances of the arrest, what might be required to determine
> > whether reasonable grounds existed for suspicion was investigation
> > not of what was in the mind of the arresting officer but rather of
> > what was in the mind of some other officer who instructed or
> > requested the first officer to make the arrest or who provided the
> > information which, reasonably or otherwise, caused that officer to
> > form a genuine suspicion and make the arrest.
> >
> > That approach could not live with the House of Lords decision in
> > O'Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
> > ((1997) AC 286) in which it was held that the only relevant
> > matters were those present in the mind of the arresting officer.
> >
> > O'Hara was decided after Clayton and Tomlinson wrote their
> > book. It was, however, decided three years before judgment in
> > the present case and it was a matter of surprise and regret that it
> > was not brought to the judge's attention.
> >
> > Both parties had been represented by counsel although not
> > counsel acting in the appeal.
> >
> > The principle established, although on consideration of a different
> > question, necessarily extended to encompass a case like the
> > present.
> >
> > The critical question to be asked in all cases was what was in the
> > mind of the arresting officer: he could never be a mere conduit for
> > someone else. It was for that reason insufficient for an arresting
> > officer to rely solely upon an instruction to carry out the arrest.
> >
> > Conversely, however, where the arresting officer's suspicion was
> > formed on the basis of a police national computer entry, that entry
> > was likely to provide the necessary objective justification.
> >
> > After all, if, as the authorities clearly established, information from
> > an informer or member of the public could properly found
> > suspicion for an arrest, why too should not an apparently
> > appropriate entry in the computer? That was not to say that any
> > computer entry would of itself necessarily justify an arrest. If there
> > was no urgency in the situation and if in the light of the whole
> > surrounding circumstances (see O'Hara at p298) some further
> > inquiry was clearly called for before suspicion could properly
> > crystallise, then the entry alone would not suffice.
> >
> > Even, moreover, when, as here, the entry of itself provided
> > sufficient justification for an arrest, that might not leave the
> > aggrieved citizen entirely without remedy. Certainly it would defeat
> > a claim for wrongful arrest.
> >
> > Perhaps, however, a claim in negligence would lie against an
> > officer making the entry in the first place, or perhaps for failing
> > later to relive it, if it could be established that he had no proper
> > basis for ever having made it.
> >
> > In considering any such claim, of course, one would recognise that
> > the computer entry of itself was likely to lead to just such an arrest
> > as occurred in the present case.
> >
> > Some support for a cause of action being available against the
> > police in such circumstances could be found in the unreported
> > decision in Clarke v Crew on May 28, 1999 (Court of Appeal
> > (Civil Division) Transcript No 0891 of 1999).
> >
> > That, however, was a question for the future.
> >
> > Lord Justice Longmore agreed.
> >
> > Solicitors: Grindeys, Stoke on Trent.
> >
> > Donald Ramsbottom BA LLb (Hons) PGdip
> > Ramsbottom & Co Solicitors
> > Internet and Global Encryption Law Specialists & General UK  Law Matters
> > 5 Seagrove Avenue Hayling Island Hampshire UK
> > Tel (44) 023 9246 5931 Fax (44) 023 9246 8349
> > Regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of Investment business
> > Service by Fax or Email NOT accepted
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
> > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----------
> > Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,
> > special,  indirect
> > or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the
> > contents of this
> > message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.
> >
> > In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time
> > to time to
> > promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
> > appearance at trade shows and conferences.
> >
> > This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
> > Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
> > computer viruses.
> >    http://www.baltimore.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>
>
>
>