A Decision To Chew On: Restraining Officer Acting In Execution Of Duty When Bitten Ms Siobhan Mullins and Laurie Swain

A police officer bitten by a suspected offender whilst helping his fellow officers in restraining him was held to be "acting in the execution of his duty" for the purposes of the Police Act 1996.

Whilst the initial actions of his colleagues in restraining the man were deemed to be unlawful, the officer was found to have an independent justification for his intervention in order to prevent those colleagues from being assaulted.

The High Court distinguished this matter from Cumberbatch v Crown Prosecution Service; Ali v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 3353 (Admin).

Background

The appellant, Corey Dixon, was cycling early on 26 March 2017 in Willesden, when seen by three police constables patrolling in an unmarked vehicle.

The appellant fitted the description of the subject of an earlier intelligence briefing, who might be carrying drugs or weapons. PC Haroon (Haroon) got out of the vehicle and asked the appellant to stop. When the appellant did not stop, Haroon grabbed his arm. Haroon was not arresting the appellant or attempting to use powers of stop and search. The appellant resisted Haroon's attempts to restrain him. PC Bailey (Bailey) then also attempted to restrain the appellant. PC Dolling (Dolling) was observing and believed that the appellant might be reaching for a weapon, improvised or otherwise. As such, Dolling attempted to restrain the appellant's arm, at which point the appellant bit Dolling on the arm.

The appellant was charged with assaulting the constables in the execution of their duty under section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996.

He was acquitted of the offences against Haroon and Bailey but convicted of the offence with regards to Dolling. The appellant appealed. The appeal was dismissed. Mr Recorder Hall QC held that the appellant had bitten Dolling, and that he had not been acting in lawful self-defence in doing so.

The Court found that: "Although PC Haroon had not been acting lawfully when he attempted to detain the appellant, PC Dolling was nevertheless acting in the execution of his duty because he thought that the appellant might be reaching for a weapon in his waistband".

The appellant appealed to the High Court.

Outcome

The question for the High Court to decide was whether the Crown Court was entitled to find that Dolling was acting in the execution of his duty when the appellant bit him, in light of Haroon's purported restraint of the claimant constituting an unlawful use of force.

The Court considered...