Hayes v Merseyside Police

Hayes v Merseyside Police

The correct test for the lawfulness of arrest under section 24(4)-(5) is whether the officer honestly believed arrest was necessary for a statutory reason and whether that belief was objectively reasonable on the facts known to him. There is no requirement for the officer to actively consider and reject all alternatives to arrest. On the facts, the arrest and continued detention were lawful.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Scott Hayes; Defendant/respondent: The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lawfulness of Arrest, Necessity for Arrest, Reasonable Grounds, Unlawful Detention, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Criminal Law Police Powers Civil Procedure Lawfulness of Arrest Necessity for Arrest Reasonable Grounds Unlawful Detention Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Hayes

Claimant/appellant

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Liverpool County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest of Mr Hayes was lawful under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the arresting officer was required to actively consider all alternatives to arrest
  3. 3 Whether continued detention became unlawful once the complainant indicated he did not wish to pursue the allegation

Ratio Decidendi

The correct test for the lawfulness of arrest under section 24(4)-(5) is whether the officer honestly believed arrest was necessary for a statutory reason and whether that belief was objectively reasonable on the facts known to him. There is no requirement for the officer to actively consider and reject all alternatives to arrest. On the facts, the arrest and continued detention were lawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed