Mondelly v Met Police

2. Mondelly v Met Police R(Mondelly) v Cssr of Met [2006] EWHC 2370 (Admin) Challenge to a caution for possession of cannabis 29th January 2004 – three new developments Cannabis re-classified to a Class C drug New policy - police officer who finds person with cannabis for personal use should not arrest unless aggravating features apply Simple possession of cannabis an arrestable offence C’s case – caution was in breach of the policy and the police’s standing orders Standing orders – said police officers retained a discretion

3. Mondelly v Met Police Admin Court divided Majority held that the policy could not override the police officer’s discretion to exercise a lawful power of arrest Majority concerned that if allowed JR it would amount in effect to a prohibition on prosecutions for simple possession That would be inconsistent with the new arrest power Walker J The caution clearly contravened the policy for no good reason Unjust that C should be in a worse position now than we would have been had the policy been applied properly Officers should have confined themselves to taking the cannabis and giving C a warning

4. C v CC of “A” Police and “A” Magistrates Court R(C) v CC of “A” Police [2006] EWHC 2352 (Admin) C was a banker suspected of child pornography offences Arrested May 2006; bailed until Dec 06 No final decision on whether to prosecute him C challenged 1. The decision to issue the search warrant 2. The decision to arrest him 3. The continuance of the investigation Underhill J prepared to consider all three in spite of previous decisions suggesting private law claims more appropriate

5. C v CC of “A” Police and “A” Magistrates Court 1. Judge critical both of information and warrant – careless But decisions by police to seek a warrant and court to grant it were not unreasonable on the material before them 2. Judge unwilling to decide whether the decision to arrest was lawful Would have done so if (1) evidence clear and complete and (2) reasons for urgency 3. Judge said Court would only intervene to close down an ongoing investigation on the basis that no prosecution was likely to result in an exceptional case Judge felt he did not have all relevant info and it would blur the role of the court and the prosecuting authorities for him to step in Judge told police to take the remaining steps as quickly as possible

6. Dennis v IPCC R(Nicola Dennis) v IPCC, Admin Court, Dec’n of 6.5.08 Police ARU forced C out of home, detained her, cuffed her and searched her Wholly innocent member of public Police investigation of complaint: no case to answer Appeal to IPCC upheld in part: words of advice to 1 officer for cuffing C and placing her on the floor Findings of Admin Court (Saunders J) 1. Caseworker misunderstood the findings of fact: another officer had done the cuffing and detention 2. Caseworker failed to consider possible justifications 3. Caseworker’s reasoning was confusing and contradictory

7. Dennis v IPCC Guidance re IPCC decisions Important that IPCC conclusions on a complaint are clear and the reasons for those decisions can be readily understood by the complainant, police and police authority (para 23) “[o]n a proper understanding it may well have been that the appeal would have been dismissed rather than allowed in part” (para 43) Is IPCC functus officio after it has given its decision? Where IPCC has made and promulgated a decision on appeal, it has no power to vary it by reason of further representations (para 54) No concluded view on power to change a decision on dispensing with an investigation

8. S v CC of South Yorkshire R(S) v CC of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39 Two claimants both arrested and charged and fingerprints and DNA samples taken. One acquitted at trial; second case discontinued. Police retained fingerprints and DNA under s.64 PACE 1984 JR challenging lawfulness of policy of retention Article 8 – disproportionate interference with private life Article 14 – unlawful discrimination vis-à-vis persons arrested but not charged

9. S v CC of South Yorkshire Lord Steyn gave the leading judgment in the HL Article 8 engaged? “any interference is very modest” Policy was proportionate Fingerprints and samples kept for a limited purpose Require a comparator to be of any use Not made public Identity not discernible to untutored eye Vs “resultant expansion of database by the retention confers enormous advantages in the fight against serious crime” Requiring police to take decisions in each individual case – unrealistic and impractical Article 14 – fair to make a distinction between persons charged and those not charged. Not a genuine comparator.

10. Laporte v CC of Gloucestershire R(Laporte) v CC of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55 Protest against Iraq war planned by “Gloucestershire Weapons Inspectors” at RAF Fairford Three coaches stopped by police on journey from London Protestors searched – found to have various items like hard hats Police identified 8 Wombles Police then escorted coach back to London C’s case – police actions violated Articles 10 and 11 ECHR QBD and CA – searches and return to London legitimate but detention on the coach unlawful

11. Laporte v CC of Gloucestershire Police could only arrest for breach of peace where such a breach was taking place or it was imminent The police could not take action short of arrest they reasonably judged to be reasonable to prevent a breach of the peace which was not sufficiently imminent to justify arrest There had been no indication of any imminent breach when the coaches were detained – an interference with lawful assembly that was not prescribed by law Majority – police’s actions were premature and indiscriminate and a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR The arrests were unlawful

12. G v CC of West Yorkshire R(G) v CC of West Yorkshire Police [2008] EWCA Civ 28 C (16) arrested for assault ABH and bailed On return date gave NC comment interview Solicitor told police there was sufficient evidence to charge so they should charge or release him Officer refused and detained him for 3 hours to consult CPS in accordance with guidance issued by DPP JR of decision to detain

13. G v CC of West Yorkshire Admin Court dismissed application Court of Appeal allowed appeal “Each and every detention must by justified by clear, unequivocal, legal authority” (para 29) Section 37 of PACE 1984 set out all the alternatives available to a custody officer who had determined that he had sufficient evidence to charge an arrested person There was no power to detain a person in order to consult the CPS without admitting the suspect to bail Such a power could not be inferred from the DPP guidance

14. Green v PCA R(Green) v PCA [2004] UKHL 6 Complaint arising from police officer knocking C off bicycle Officer guilty of driving without due care and attention Initial decision of PCA: no recommendation for disciplinary proceedings Decision under review PCA invited C to submit further evidence C requested all witness statements and documents made available to PCA so he could make effective representations PCA refused Sole issue – whether PCA required to disclose the information under s.80 of the Police Act 1996

15. Green v PCA Moses J in Admin Court – all eyewitness accounts should be disclosed to C. CA reversed decision. On appeal to HL – Lord Rodger giving leading judgment S.80(1)(a) of Act: disclosure permitted only “so far as may be necessary for the proper disclosure of the functions of the authority” Functions defined by s.76 of the Act Any disclosure in contravention of s.80 a criminal offence “A somewhat unpromising starting point for what Mr Gordon contended was a general duty on the authority to disclose information to complainants” Not necessary to disclose the source material – effective representations possible in relation to the provisional decision N.B. IPCC now has duty to disclose under PRA 2002 s.20

16. Other recent examples R(IPCC) v CC of West Mercia [2007] EWHC 1035 (Admin) Successful JR challenging decision of WMP to stay disciplinary proceedings against an officer for abuse of process Kay v Cssr of Met Police [2006] EWHC 1536 (Admin) JR on whether the Critical Mass cycle rides in London were required to give the police prior notice under s.11 POA 1996 R(A) v South Yorks Police and CPS [2007] EWHC 1261 (Admin) JR challenging decision to charge juveniles instead of giving them final warnings