High Court Affirms Lawfulness of Police Arrest to Prevent Imminent Breach of Peace: Rawlins v CPS

Citation: [2018] EWHC 2533 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Rawlins v Crown Prosecution Service [2018] EWHC 2533 (Admin), the High Court of Justice considered an appeal that raised issues concerning the lawfulness of police action and the proper application of legal principles relating to breaches of the peace and potential unlawful eviction. The case required the High Court to determine whether the actions of police officers, in requiring an individual to leave his home or face arrest for breach of the peace, were lawful and whether the subsequent arrest amounted to an assault on the officers.

Key Facts

The appellant, at the time a 20-year-old residing with his parents, was convicted by Basildon Magistrates’ Court of three charges of assaulting a constable in the execution of their duty. The police were called to the scene by the appellant’s father due to concerns over the appellant’s aggressive behavior. Upon arriving, the police, using a key provided by the father, entered the appellant’s room and advised him to leave the property to prevent a potential breach of the peace. The appellant, becoming aggressive, was arrested following his threatening stance with clenched fists. The appellant’s legal team argued that the police had no right to threaten arrest as the appellant’s behavior was not implying an imminent breach of the peace, amounting to an unlawful eviction.

The judgment in Rawlins v CPS hinged on several key legal principles, including the lawfulness of arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, the role of imminence in justifying such an arrest, and the concept of proportionality in police action. Several precedents were referenced:

  1. Breach of the Peace and Lawfulness of Arrest:

    • The notion of lawful arrest to prevent an imminent breach of the peace was affirmed through precedents like Foulkes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (1998) and R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2007], the latter explaining the threshold for a “real and present” threat to justify an arrest.

  2. Consideration of Imminence:

    • The decision in Redmond-Bate v DPP [2000] illustrated the objective test for evaluating the reasonableness of an officer’s belief about the imminence of a breach of the peace, emphasizing that such an assessment must be based on the officer’s perspective at the time of the events.

  3. Proportionality of Police Action:

    • The appellant contested that the police did not consider less invasive alternatives before arresting him. However, the court did not find merit in this argument once it was established that the appellant’s aggressive behavior represented an imminent breach of the peace.

  4. Unlawful Eviction:

    • The case referenced Gibson v Douglas [2017] to explore whether the appellant was being unlawfully evicted. However, the court determined that at the time of the appellant’s aggressive response, no eviction was occurring to justify his actions.

Outcomes

The High Court affirmed the findings of the Magistrates’ Court, concluding that the police officers had reasonable grounds to arrest the appellant to prevent a breach of the peace. It further confirmed that at the moment the appellant showed aggressive behavior, which justifies an arrest, there was no active eviction process. Therefore, the appellant’s actions in assaulting the officers were unlawful.

Conclusion

Rawlins v CPS confirms the lawfulness of police action when arresting an individual to prevent an imminent breach of the peace. The court reiterated that an officer’s assessment of imminence must be reasonable and grounded in the circumstances as perceived at the time. Additionally, the case clarified that aggressive behavior towards police officers can constitute a legitimate basis for arrest under the threat of an imminent breach of the peace, independent of any allegations of unlawful eviction. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction for assaulting constables in the execution of their duty.