For those handling claims brought against the police, an all too familiar scenario arose in the claim brought by Gary Wimblett against Lancashire Constabulary – an entry on the Police National Computer (‘PNC’) by one force relied upon by another to undertake an arrest. But where an error lay with the information on the PNC, which force is responsible for the subsequent arrest?
Background
The claimant was subject of a non-molestation order (“NMO”) obtained by his ex-wife in May 2021. In late July 2021, the ex-wife reported to Lancashire Constabulary that the claimant had breached his conditions. A Lancashire officer, PC Wade, was assigned as OIC and attempted to arrest the claimant at his parents’ address in Blackpool and was told he was out of town. PC Wade managed to contact the claimant on 8 August 2021 by telephone and the claimant advised he had left Blackpool and moved to Devon.
It was agreed that PC Wade told the claimant police wished to speak to him regarding an allegation. It was disputed whether the claimant gave his current address (the claimant’s case) or whether he refused to provide his exact location or commit to a specific date/time to go to a police station (PC Wade’s case).
On 16 August 2021, absent further contact between them, PC Wade circulated a wanted marker on the PNC marked as “Wanted Report with Power of Arrest”. The PNC contained a brief outline of the circumstances and reasons why the claimant was wanted. The claimant was arrested on 11 September 2021 by Devon and Cornwall Police leading to a lengthy period of detention between his time there and being transported to Blackpool for interview.
The claimant brought proceedings against Lancashire Constabulary on the single ground that PC Wade had directly procured his wrongful arrest by circulating the wanted marker.
At first instance, HHJ Beech at Preston County Court dismissed the claimant’s claims for false imprisonment, assault and battery. The claimant appealed.
Decision
The court went back to basic principles of what is required for a lawful arrest. It is for the arresting officer to satisfy themselves that there are objectively reasonable grounds to suspect an individual of an offence, and that the arrest is necessary. Ultimately, a wanted marker is not an order to arrest, and the fact that a briefing officer provided incomplete or inaccurate information does not on its own mean that the arrest is automatically unlawful. What matters is the information known to the arresting officer and that officers’ assessment of that information.
The court recognised that there were exceptions where somebody other than the arresting officer could be liable for any subsequent false imprisonment on the grounds of accessory liability. This required intentional conduct over and above the provision of information; i.e. directing the arrest of an individual where there would otherwise be no lawful basis to arrest them; or where the briefing officer had deliberately given misleading or incomplete information to the arresting officer, to the point the arresting officer was deprived of any independent discretion.
The court ultimately determined that it would have been “necessary for PC Wade to have acted dishonestly or with some degree of wilful culpability in issuing the PNCN before it could be said that he directly encouraged or incited and thus procured Mr Wimblett’s arrest by doing so”. Having reached that conclusion, the appeal was dismissed and the claimant’s claim failed.
Analysis
This will be a very welcome judgment amongst defendant police practitioners in providing clarity around responsibility for false imprisonment arising from entries on the PNC. The bar for responsibility of circulating forces has been set, and it is a high one. Accountability for an arrest will remain with the arresting officer unless the claimant can prove either that the circulation amounted to a direct order or instruction to arrest, or that the briefing officer had lied or was wilfully culpable.
It has long been accepted that police officers may rely on the PNC to form their reasonable suspicions that an individual has committed an offence, leaving little avenue for challenge for claimants arrested based on a wanted marker they argue was inaccurate or that ought not to have been issued. Challenges to the arresting officer’s belief in the necessity to arrest will become an increasing focus to enable a claim to be brought; and attacks upon the honesty of those officers who circulate PNC markers may become prevalent. Alternatively, we might see attempts to open a new battleground under the Data Protection Act 2018 suggesting any detention arising from inaccurate data is a form of non-material damage. Whilst the police might well have closed this door, claimants will undoubtedly be looking for the next one to open.
