R v Samuel Miller & Anor
[2024] EWCA Crim 794
Alexis Karalis v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary
19 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1496 (KB)
High Court
A man was arrested for rape based on info from a detective. A judge said the arresting officer was right to arrest him, even if the initial witness changed her story. The higher court agreed that only the arresting officer's belief matters, unless the detective was lying or directly ordered the arrest.
Key Facts
- •Alexis Karalis (Appellant) sued the Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary (Respondent) for false imprisonment and assault following his arrest on suspicion of rape on June 10, 2014.
- •The trial judge initially sat with a jury, which was discharged by consent. The judge then heard the case alone.
- •The Appellant's claim for false imprisonment succeeded only to a limited extent, relating to a failure to comply with section 28 of PACE 1984 (failure to provide grounds for arrest).
- •A key witness, NT, initially identified the Appellant from CCTV footage but later changed her identification.
- •The arresting officer, PC Sanders, based her suspicion on an HPAR compiled by DS Judge, the Senior Investigating Officer.
- •The central issue on appeal concerned whether the jury should have been asked about DS Judge's honest suspicion, not just that of PC Sanders.
- •The Judge found that PC Sanders had objectively reasonable grounds to suspect Karalis and that the arrest was necessary.
- •The Appellant appealed on four grounds, primarily challenging the Judge's refusal to include DS Judge's suspicion in the jury's deliberations.
Legal Principles
False imprisonment requires proof of imprisonment and the absence of lawful authority.
R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex p Hague [1992] 1 AC 58
Section 24 of PACE 1984 provides the statutory framework for lawful arrests.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
In false imprisonment cases involving police arrests, the focus is on the arresting officer's state of mind (honest suspicion and reasonable grounds).
O’Hara v Chief Constable of the RUC [1997] AC 286
The arresting officer can rely on information from other officers, but cannot simply obey orders.
O’Hara v Chief Constable of the RUC [1997] AC 286; Parker v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2017] EWHC 2140 (QB)
If a briefing officer deliberately lies to procure an arrest, that arrest may be unlawful, even if the arresting officer acted lawfully.
Copeland v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWCA Civ 1014
Merely providing information to the police does not make one liable for false imprisonment; a direction or procurement is needed.
Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales [1994] 2 All ER 597
Appellate courts should not interfere with trial judge's findings of fact unless compelled to do so.
Fage (UK) v Charbani [2014] EWCA Civ 4
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge correctly focused on the arresting officer's state of mind. The evidence supported the finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for suspicion, even considering the witness's changed statement. There was no evidence that the briefing officer acted improperly or gave direct instructions to the arresting officer.