Foster v MPS legal update

Executive Summary

The court determined that officers lawfully entered an address pursuant to s17(1)(e) PACE for the purpose of saving life or limb.

Background

On 8 March 2018, police received a report from an anonymous caller of a female screaming. The informant stated that a male neighbour had been hitting his wife, that it had been going on for about an hour and that there was a child in the house. The address given was that of the third claimant. On arrival, officers were initially authorised to enter by the third claimant, but the first and second claimants convinced him to change his mind and consent was withdrawn. This led to the officers having to enter by force pursuant to s17(1)(e) PACE (to save life or limb). The evidence of the officers was that they believed someone inside the property had been seriously injured.  

Following entry, force was used against all claimants to effect arrests, including CS spray at close range to the third claimant’s face. The officers gave accounts of why nothing less than CS spray would have sufficed - PC Swinfield’s arm was trapped underneath the third claimant, so his options were very limited, and CS spray had previously been used to assist with entering the property.

The claimants were all arrested for obstructing/assaulting a constable in the execution of their duties and prosecuted. The magistrates’ court dismissed all charges against the claimants and stated that the police had no power of entry (although there was an issue with the admissibility of evidence and the prosecution was not allowed to rely on the CAD, a key document).

The three claimants pursued claims against the Commissioner for false imprisonment, assault and trespass.

Decision

At trial in June 2026, HHJ Holmes determined that the officers genuinely believed they had a right to enter the claimant’s address under s17 PACE to save life and limb, as they believed someone inside had or would be seriously injured. HHJ Holmes decided that the objective test was met as the report of a female and child heard screaming in a domestic context for over an hour would meet the threshold of a risk of serious injury.

The arrest of Mr Powell for assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty was lawful as his taking of PC Turner by the throat, in respect of which there was overwhelming evidence, was an assault. All use of force against Mr Powell, including pointing a taser at him and use of CS spray at close range (described by the judge as a ‘very significant’ use of force), was ‘more than justified’ in the circumstances.

It followed that Mr Foster’s and Mr Moor’s arrests for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty were lawful, and all uses of force against those claimants were also lawful.

Comment

S17(1)(e) PACE is a useful, if infrequently used, power for officers. Forcing entry to private property is a sensitive issue, and PACE rightly sets a high threshold to protect the rights of individuals. This case provides a useful indication to officers of the scrutiny likely to follow when the section is deployed, and useful guidance for legal teams defending subsequent challenges. The judge here was impressed by the officers’ clear evidence that they were fully aware of the demands of the statutory language of ‘saving life or limb’, and their knowledge that they had to ‘believe’ rather than simply ‘suspect’ that someone inside the property had been seriously injured.