Lord Hanningfield Unlawfully Arrested by Essex Police

Last Friday the High Court held that Essex Police unlawfully arrested and detained Lord Hanningfield. It also held that they unlawfully searched his home.

Lord Hanningfield, 72, was arrested as part of an investigation into whether he had fraudulently abused his position of trust in relation to the expenses he claimed while leader of Essex County Council.

On the 14 September 2011, at 6.45 a.m., five officers arrived in unmarked police vehicles, woke the peer, arrested him and searched his bungalow without ever having obtained a warrant. He was then detained at Braintree Police Station until later that morning. Lord Hanningfield had only been released from prison a few days before, on 9 September 2011, having been imprisoned on 1 July 2011 following his conviction for false accounting in relation to his House of Lords expenses.

Lord Hanningfield argued that the arrest, search and detention were unlawful. As he was arrested without a warrant the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (section 24) says that the question of whether the arrest was lawful or not turned on if it was ‘necessary’ to arrest him to ‘allow the prompt and effective investigation’ of an offence or his conduct. It was agreed that if the arrest was unlawful then the search and detention would be unlawful also.

So what exactly does ‘necessary’ mean? Mr Justice Eady, the judge, explained that previous cases tell us that ‘necessary’ in this context means that we consider two things:

(a) did the officer making the arrest believe himself it was necessary to make the arrest, based on what he knew (a subjective question); and

(b) would a reasonable person, who knew the same facts as the officer, also believe that it was necessary to make the arrest? (an objective question)

Having defined ‘necessary’ the judge went on to consider the arguments on both sides. The police argued that it was necessary to make the arrest because Lord Hanningfield might have tried to conceal or destroy evidence relating to his expenses now that he had been released from prison. They also argued that he might seek to collude with other individuals who were suspects (none of whom were ever arrested). Finally they suggested he might fly into a temper when challenged on his council expenses. On the other hand, Lord Hanningfield argued that he had always been cooperative and would have been more than happy to attend a voluntary interview or could have been interviewed in prison. He further argued that he had known about the police investigation back in May 2011 and could therefore have destroyed or concealed evidence or colluded long before his imprisonment.

The judge agreed with Lord Hanningfield. He held that although the arresting officer believed it was necessary to make the arrest no reasonable person would conclude it was necessary to make the arrest at that time. The arrest at that time would not have had any impact on a prompt and effective investigation. ‘There were simply no solid grounds to suppose that [Lord Hanningfield] would suddenly start to hide or destroy evidence, or that he would make inappropriate contacts’. There was no reason not to follow the process to obtain a warrant. As the arrest was not necessary it was therefore unlawful. Since the arrest was unlawful it was held that the search and detention were also unlawful.

The sum of £3,500 was awarded to Lord Hanningfield, who has promised to donate the money to charity. Essex Police have said they are considering whether to appeal.

The judgment can be read here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/243.html

Discussion

I certainly hope that Essex Police do not waste any further taxpayer’s money appealing this decision. It is clear to me that it was not necessary to arrest Lord Hanningfield at the moment he was. There was ample opportunity to interview him in prison. Alternatively, a voluntary interview could have been requested. What are your thoughts? Was an arrest necessary at that time?