48 replies to this topic

[phantom91]

A Police officer approaches a suspect with the intention of arresting him for assault. Suspect resists arrest, breaks away and runs 10 metres down the road in to a dwelling.

The police officer follows him in to the house where he is able to eventually detain and arrest him for assault

Suspect and suspects family complain that officer needed warrant to enter and threaten to complain.

Is it the case that if the suspect was being detained for ABH the officer could enter under S17, but if its for common assault or summary only offence they would have to let suspect ran in to property and could not enter to effect his arrest?

[NexivWho]

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Section 17
Section 17 permits a constable to enter and search any premises for the purpose of arresting a person for an arrestable offence.

http://www.fact-uk.o...ustice/pace.htm

Common assault or summary only offence would fall into the definition?

[phantom91]

I thought it was only for specified offences though such as either-way / indictable only. On warrant and for other specified summary offences i.e. S4 public order, S4 RTA etc. If you entered somebodies house to arrest for common assault and resisting arrest I didn't think this would be permitted under S17 as both are summary offences and are not specified as per the S17 requirements.

That being said if I knew this for sure I wouldn't have started this topic!

[wanabe]

Power of Entry - PACE

Section 17(1)
A constable may enter and search any premises for the purposes of:

>1. executing a warrant of arrest issued in connection with or arising out of criminal proceedings, or
>2. a commitment warrant
>3. arresting a person for an arrestable offence
>4. arresting a person for certain statutory offences
>5. recapturing any person who is unlawfully at large and whom he/she is immediately pursuing
>6. saving life or limb (human) or preventing serious damage to property (may include animals).



Section 17(2)
Except for the purpose of saving life or limb, a constable may only enter and search if the constable has REASONABLE GROUNDS for BELIEVING that the person for whom he is seeking is on the premises and in relation to a premises that consists of two or more separate dwellings, to enter and search ANY parts of the premises, which the occupiers use in common with other occupiers.

Take a look at number 3 ^

[richr]

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Section 17
Section 17 permits a constable to enter and search any premises for the purpose of arresting a person for an arrestable offence.

http://www.fact-uk.o...ustice/pace.htm

Common assault or summary only offence would fall into the definition?

Now the problem with this quote is that it predates the IDCOPLAN amendments - all offences are arrestable

The amended power is for indictable or either-way offences (plus those with a specified power of entry).

[davidedward]

He has resisted arrest and attempted to make off. Is he not therefore unlawfully at large?

[Fry]

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Section 17
Section 17 permits a constable to enter and search any premises for the purpose of arresting a person for an arrestable offence.

http://www.fact-uk.o...ustice/pace.htm

Common assault or summary only offence would fall into the definition?

Arrestable offences went out the window after Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 amended the s24 PACE powers of arrest. It now reads "indictable" offences.

Anyway, s17(1)(d) would apply which is to enter for the purpose of "of recapturing [any person whatever] who is unlawfully at large and whom he is pursuing;"

If he's under arrest, even for a summary offence, and runs away then he is unlawfully at large.

[bensonby]

I thought the definition of "unlawfully act large" was a very narrow one under s.49 of the Prison Act 1952.

[richr]

Is it the case that if the suspect was being detained for ABH the officer could enter under S17, but if its for common assault or summary only offence they would have to let suspect ran in to property and could not enter to effect his arrest?

My thoughts on this are that I'm not a doctor (or lawyer ), so I can't say with any certainity whether an assault that involves physical contact is ABH or not; all I need to justify is that I suspected the assault to be ABH.

It's like arresting for assaulting a police officer (or TDA) - why make that fine decision on the ground? Nick 'em on suspicion of assault occasioning ABH (unless it's patently not, obviously!) and let the criminal justice elves decide what to go forward with. No point intentionally limiting the powers you've got available.

[hathaway]

I thought the definition of "unlawfully act large" was a very narrow one under s.49 of the Prison Act 1952.

yes, but for the reasons given above that's irrelevant here

[phantom91]

So let's simplify this and say the suspect was being searched and decided to run off for some reason and obstruct the search. Officers run after him and follow him in to his house to arrest for him obstruct Police by running off during the search. Is the entry to the address lawful? Assault is a bit of a grey one as if it's common assault it appears you could not enter under S17, but for ABH you could.

Obstruct Police is summary only and there is certainly no ambiguity to it like there is for assault say.

[wanabe]

What is the reason you are searching the suspect? To find evidence of what offence?

[richr]

I thought the definition of "unlawfully act large" was a very narrow one under s.49 of the Prison Act 1952.

Oddly, that quote doesn't actually define unlawfully at large -

Any person who, having been sentenced to imprisonment or custody for life or ordered to be detained in secure accomodation or in a young offenders institution, or having been committed to a prison or remand centre, is unlawfully at large, may be arrested by a constable without warrant and taken to the place in which he is required in accordance with law to be detained.

It doesn't say that those having been sentenced to imprisonment etc. are unlawfully at large but rather that they may be arrested and returned from whence they came if they are unlawfully at large.

edit: I note ss4, which permits absconders from leave to be defined as unlawfully at large, only applies to this section. This does rather presume that there are other categories of 'unlawfully at large' which don't apply here.

edit2: Indeed there are. 102 hits in Halsbury, which isn't useful! This might be worth an ask to PNLD if anyone has access?

Edited by richr, 05 March 2012 - 02:42 PM.

[phantom91]

What is the reason you are searching the suspect? To find evidence of what offence?

Let's say it's a S23 drugs search

[adslegend]

Oddly, that quote doesn't actually define unlawfully at large -



It doesn't say that those having been sentenced to imprisonment etc. are unlawfully at large but rather that they may be arrested and returned from whence they came if they are unlawfully at large.

I do (and always have) share the same interpretation as you on this matter.

Let's say it's a S23 drugs search

In which case you have a power to enter and arrest since obstructing a S23 MDA drugs search (including a warrant) is a specific, indictable offence.

[phantom91]

And if it was a S1 search would this make any difference?

[adslegend]

I'm inclined to say that in the original scenario, you have a power to enter and arrest regardless.

The person has been arrested and has escaped from lawful custody. There is no requirement in law that a person needs to be told they are under arrest in order for them to understand, and there are stated cases that guide us that a person should know they are being arrested if simple contact is made, without being verbally informed.

It sounds from the OP that the person knew they were being apprehended and struggled, then got away. I can't see any reason why an entry to arrest them would be unlawful, whatever offence they had originally been arrested for.

[wanabe]

To be honest the situation doesn't come up very often in practise. Well at least it doesn't with me. It goes one of two ways really.

A, I turn up at an address to arrest somebody (so I can gain entry)

B, I turn up at an address and say "can I just pop in for a few minutes I need to chat to you about an incident" and they let me in.

There's not many occasions when I have to ask myself can I legally gain entry.

Edited by wanabe, 05 March 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[phantom91]

To be honest the situation doesn't come up very often in practise. Well at least it doesn't with me. It goes one of two ways really.

A, I turn up at an address to arrest somebody (so I can gain entry)

B, I turn up at an address and say "can I just pop in for a few minutes I need to chat to you about an incident" and they let me in.

There's not many occasions when I have to ask myself can I legally gain entry.

Same here, that is why I thought it would make a good scenario. I'm still not sure how legal it would be to pursue somebody wanted for common assault or any unspecified summary offence in to a dwelling if they made off. Maybe a custody Sgt or somebody with extensive knowledge may look at this post and give their opinion.

[adslegend]

Same here, that is why I thought it would make a good scenario. I'm still not sure how legal it would be to pursue somebody wanted for common assault or any unspecified summary offence in to a dwelling if they made off. Maybe a custody Sgt or somebody with extensive knowledge may look at this post and give their opinion.

The questions have already been answered, but I'll help you again (BTW, I'm not a custody Sgt but I am a PC qualified to the required standard of a Sergeant in terms of law knowledge):

It would not be lawful to pursue someone suspected of committing a common assault into private premises in order to arrest them on suspicion of committing that offence.

If they had already been arrested on suspicion of committing a common assault and escaped, you have a power of entry.

Just to throw something else in, put yourself in the position where you reasonably suspected them of committing an assault with ABH injuries and effected a lawful entry. Once inside, if your colleague contacted you and said the victim had been checked out by a Dr and there were no injuries at all, provided there was no other reason for your to suspect an ABH in anyway you would still be acting entirely lawfully if you then arrested the suspect on suspicion of common assault because you are still on the premises lawfully.

[Capt. Carrot]

The questions have already been answered, but I'll help you again (BTW, I'm not a custody Sgt but I am a PC qualified to the required standard of a Sergeant in terms of law knowledge):

It would not be lawful to pursue someone suspected of committing a common assault into private premises in order to arrest them on suspicion of committing that offence.

If they had already been arrested on suspicion of committing a common assault and escaped, you have a power of entry.

Just to throw something else in, put yourself in the position where you reasonably suspected them of committing an assault with ABH injuries and effected a lawful entry. Once inside, if your colleague contacted you and said the victim had been checked out by a Dr and there were no injuries at all, provided there was no other reason for your to suspect an ABH in anyway you would still be acting entirely lawfully if you then arrested the suspect on suspicion of common assault because you are still on the premises lawfully.

I think the original post is complicated by the use of "the intention of arresting him for assault". That isn't the same as "has arrested". If that case remained then the s17 entry would not be lawful. However the original post goes on to say "resists arrest", so it is unclear if the person is arrested or not. Also it's not clear whether the assault amounted to an ABH in which case the entry would become lawful again. The OP also states that the officer arrested him inside the house, reinforcing the view that the arrest hadn't already taken place, therefore the offender was not subject to re-capture.
You could possibly choose to go S4 Public Order Act which maintains a power of entry under S17, but it sounds like the scenario went beyond that.

Edited by Capt. Carrot, 05 March 2012 - 03:12 PM.

[phantom91]

I think the original post is complicated by the use of "the intention of arresting him for assault". That isn't the same as "has arrested". If that case remained then the s17 entry would not be lawful. However the original post goes on to say "resists arrest", so it is unclear if the person is arrested or not. Also it's not clear whethe rthe assault amounted to an ABH in which case the entry would become lawful again. The OP also states that the officer arrested him inside the house, reinforcing the view that the arrest hadn't already taken place, therefore the offender was not subject to re-capture.
You could possibly choose to go S4 Public Order Act which maintains a power of entry under S17, but it sounds like the scenario went beyond that.

So the officer got as far as taking hold of the suspects wrist, attempting to apply the cuffs when the suspect broke free. Officer also managed to say "I AM ARRESTING YOU F..." before suspect broke free.

[adslegend]

So the officer got as far as taking hold of the suspects wrist, attempting to apply the cuffs when the suspect broke free. Officer also managed to say "I AM ARRESTING YOU F..." before suspect broke free.

I think in most cases, a court would agree that this amounts to a lawful arrest.

[Capt. Carrot]

I think in most cases, a court would agree that this amounts to a lawful arrest.

Yep, so would I.
The OP didn't include that though.
I think the original question was simply: What [practical] circumstances would allow an officer to enter and search using S17 PACE?
if you haven't made the arrest yet, and it's summary only, you can't go in unless one of the other provisions apply.
If you've made the arrest (partially but substantially would usually be adequate) and they scarper, provided you are in immediate pursuit, you can enter to search a premises you believe they are in. (applies to indictable and summary)

[Capt. Carrot]

So the officer got as far as taking hold of the suspects wrist, attempting to apply the cuffs when the suspect broke free. Officer also managed to say "I AM ARRESTING YOU F..." before suspect broke free.

I'd say that's sufficient for them to be considered arrested. You would have continued with the speech but were prevented from doing so by them running off. Ultimately a Court would decide on this point though.