Hough v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police

[Barnaby]

<Wake-up>
Would now be a good time to mention Steven Waldorf? Maybe not, I'll go back
to sleep...
</Wake-up>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Kirwan" <mkirwan@baltimore.com>
To: <ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 8:56 AM
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.
>
>
>