R v Scott Marsden
[2023] EWCA Crim 1610
R v Samuel Miller & Anor
21 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 794
Court of Appeal
Two men, part of a vigilante group, wrongly arrested someone. They claimed they could use force to stop a crime, but the court said they couldn't because there was no real danger. Other arguments they made were also rejected, so they lost their appeal.
Key Facts
- •Samuel Miller and James Moss, members of a vigilante group called COST, falsely imprisoned Phillip Morris.
- •COST used decoy children to communicate with suspected paedophiles before carrying out citizen's arrests.
- •Morris was detained after online communication with a COST decoy.
- •Miller and Moss claimed their actions were justified under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
- •The prosecution argued that the defendants' actions amounted to false imprisonment.
- •The trial judge withdrew the section 3 defence from the jury.
- •Miller's appeal also raised issues of hearsay evidence admissibility and bad character directions.
Legal Principles
Use of reasonable force in the prevention of crime or assisting in lawful arrest.
Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
Reasonableness of force in citizen's arrests; considers the state's monopoly on legitimate force and limitations on self-help.
R v Jones [2006] UKHL 16; DPP v Stratford Magistrates' Court [2017] EWHC 1794 (Admin)
Power of arrest without warrant for individuals other than constables; conditions for lawful arrest, including necessity and impracticability of police involvement.
Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Admissibility of hearsay evidence; consideration of fear and interests of justice.
Section 116(1) and 116(2)(c) and section 114(2) of the Criminal Justice Act
Directions on bad character; consideration of credibility vs. propensity.
R v Hanson [2005] EWCA Crim 824
Outcomes
Appeals against conviction refused.
The judge was not wrong to withdraw the section 3 defence; the feared crime didn't involve risk of harm, and the force wasn't used to assist a constable.
Judge's direction on reasonableness of force upheld.
Section 24A of PACE doesn't grant power to use force; that power comes from section 3 of the CLA, requiring reasonable force. The judge's directions were correct.
Admission of hearsay evidence upheld.
The judge correctly applied the legal test and found it was in the interests of justice to admit the evidence, considering witness fear and the overall context.
Judge's directions on bad character upheld.
The judge's directions were limited to credibility, not propensity, and did not render the conviction unsafe.