Concept of 'reasonable suspicion'
• What counts as ‘reasonable suspicion’?
• Answer - not much – it is a malleable and non-exacting standard
• Fox, Campbell & Hartley v UK [1990] 11 EHRR 117: presupposition of facts,
information that would satisfy an objective observer that the arrested person may have
committed the offence.
• Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942: may take into account matters that could
not be put down in evidence or if admitted into court would not on their own prove the case
against the accused – per Devlin at 948.
• Al Fayed & others v Commr of Police No 3 [2004] EWCA 1579; Cumming v Chief
Constable of Northumbria (2004) The Times January 2.
• Mohammed-Holgate v Duke [1984] AC 437: police can arrest to gather info (however
not on its own, there must be a suspicion that the individual is involved in the crime) –
provided they can show this lower-level standard – no need to show that they believe
arrested person probably committed the offence in question
• If they lack even ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ and simply arrest to acquire info –
then this breaches s.24 PACE & Art 5.1(c) ECHR
- Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988]:
• Many powers under PACE require a PC to have reasonable grounds for arrest. Held
by the Court of Appeal that this does not mean that there had to be sufficient grounds
for an ordinary person to think that a person is guilty - it is sufficient that an ordinary
person may suspect that the defendant was guilty.
• the Court of Appeal held that where an unlawful arrest is alleged two questions must
be answered:
o 1. First, did the arresting officer suspect the person to be guilty (a subjective
test)
o 2. Secondly was there a reasonable cause for suspicion (an objective test).
• Whose reasonable suspicion?
• O’Hara v Chief Constable of RUC [1997] AC 286
o Arresting PC formed his suspicion about O after being briefed by colleagues that O
had been involved in a murder
o HELD: “reasonable suspicion” where arresting PC bases suspicion on info supplied by
colleagues prior to arrest. NB PC cannot arrest simply at the request of another officer. They
need to form their own belief; however, they can form their belief after taking the information
supplied to them by their fellow officers.
o R (on app of Chatwani) v National Crime Agency [2015] EWHC 1283: provided arresting
officer has apparently reliable info – fact that it later proves to be incorrect does not make
arrest unlawful
o Proctor v CC of Cleveland [2017] EWCA 153 : 16 yr old fundraiser ‘Stop Huntingdon
Animal Cruelty’ arrested in Middlesborough on basis of PC mistaken suspicion that 16 yr old
was fraudulently mispresenting SHAC as a charity.
HELD: PC suspicion though mistaken was still reasonable = no wrongful
arrest. Evidence of dishonest collectors in Middlesborough – Proctor’s collecting box did
resemble a charity box
• What counts as ‘reasonable suspicion’?
• Answer - not much – it is a malleable and non-exacting standard
• Fox, Campbell & Hartley v UK [1990] 11 EHRR 117: presupposition of facts,
information that would satisfy an objective observer that the arrested person may have
committed the offence.
• Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942: may take into account matters that could
not be put down in evidence or if admitted into court would not on their own prove the case
against the accused – per Devlin at 948.
• Al Fayed & others v Commr of Police No 3 [2004] EWCA 1579; Cumming v Chief
Constable of Northumbria (2004) The Times January 2.
• Mohammed-Holgate v Duke [1984] AC 437: police can arrest to gather info (however
not on its own, there must be a suspicion that the individual is involved in the crime) –
provided they can show this lower-level standard – no need to show that they believe
arrested person probably committed the offence in question
• If they lack even ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ and simply arrest to acquire info –
then this breaches s.24 PACE & Art 5.1(c) ECHR
- Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey [1988]:
• Many powers under PACE require a PC to have reasonable grounds for arrest. Held
by the Court of Appeal that this does not mean that there had to be sufficient grounds
for an ordinary person to think that a person is guilty - it is sufficient that an ordinary
person may suspect that the defendant was guilty.
• the Court of Appeal held that where an unlawful arrest is alleged two questions must
be answered:
o 1. First, did the arresting officer suspect the person to be guilty (a subjective
test)
o 2. Secondly was there a reasonable cause for suspicion (an objective test).
• Whose reasonable suspicion?
• O’Hara v Chief Constable of RUC [1997] AC 286
o Arresting PC formed his suspicion about O after being briefed by colleagues that O
had been involved in a murder
o HELD: “reasonable suspicion” where arresting PC bases suspicion on info supplied by
colleagues prior to arrest. NB PC cannot arrest simply at the request of another officer. They
need to form their own belief; however, they can form their belief after taking the information
supplied to them by their fellow officers.
o R (on app of Chatwani) v National Crime Agency [2015] EWHC 1283: provided arresting
officer has apparently reliable info – fact that it later proves to be incorrect does not make
arrest unlawful
o Proctor v CC of Cleveland [2017] EWCA 153 : 16 yr old fundraiser ‘Stop Huntingdon
Animal Cruelty’ arrested in Middlesborough on basis of PC mistaken suspicion that 16 yr old
was fraudulently mispresenting SHAC as a charity.
HELD: PC suspicion though mistaken was still reasonable = no wrongful
arrest. Evidence of dishonest collectors in Middlesborough – Proctor’s collecting box did
resemble a charity box
