Assaulting A Police Officer Prosecutions
Assaulting a police officer is a serious criminal offence in many jurisdictions, including under UK law (e.g., under Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996) and in various legal systems around the world. It generally involves intentionally or recklessly causing harm, or threatening harm, to a police officer who is acting in the execution of their duty.
To secure a conviction for assaulting a police officer, the prosecution must prove the following elements:
The victim was a police officer.
The officer was acting in the execution of their duty.
The defendant assaulted, obstructed, or resisted the officer.
The act was intentional or reckless.
Let’s explore this in more depth using detailed case law examples.
1. R v KERR (1988) 88 Cr App R 170
Facts:
A police officer was executing a lawful arrest. The defendant physically resisted, causing injury to the officer. The defence argued that the officer was being overly aggressive and not acting lawfully.
Held:
The court found that the officer was acting within the scope of their duty and that the force used by the defendant was excessive. The appeal failed. The judgment clarified that an officer must be acting lawfully in their duties — otherwise, the use of force by the defendant may not amount to assault on a police officer.
Significance:
This case highlights that the prosecution must prove the officer was acting lawfully. If a police officer acts outside their lawful powers (e.g., using unlawful force or detaining someone without cause), a defendant may have a valid defence.
2. R v SEXTON (1984) 79 Cr App R 277
Facts:
A plain-clothed police officer attempted to arrest a suspect without identifying himself. The suspect struck the officer, not knowing they were law enforcement.
Held:
Conviction overturned. The court held that a person has a right to resist unlawful arrest, especially where the identity of the officer is not made clear.
Significance:
This case illustrates that knowledge of the officer’s identity and their duty status are essential to prove the offence. The defendant must know, or it must be obvious, that the person is a police officer acting in their official capacity.
3. R v BURNS (2010)
Facts:
During a protest, a police officer was pushed and fell. The accused claimed it was unintentional due to the chaos and crowding.
Held:
The court found that intention or recklessness must be proved. Because the defendant did not intend to assault the officer, and there was no recklessness, he was acquitted.
Significance:
This case reinforces the mens rea (mental element) requirement. Mere contact or interference is not enough; there must be intent or recklessness in the act of assaulting the officer.
4. DPP v TAYLOR; DPP v DUMBLEBY [2006] EWHC 1202 (Admin)
Facts:
Two individuals were charged with assaulting police officers during an arrest. The defence argued the officers used excessive force and were not acting in the execution of their duty.
Held:
The Divisional Court reaffirmed that police officers lose the protection of the law if they use excessive force or act outside their powers. However, in this case, the officers acted proportionately and lawfully, so the assault charges were upheld.
Significance:
This case clarifies that lawful conduct by officers is a prerequisite to a successful prosecution. If the arrest or police actions are unlawful, then resistance may not constitute assault under s.89 Police Act 1996.
5. R (On the application of Redmond-Bate) v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733
Facts:
A group of street preachers were arrested for causing a public disturbance. One of them resisted and was charged with assaulting a police officer. She argued that the arrest was unlawful as she was exercising her free speech.
Held:
The court sided with the defendant. It was held that freedom of expression cannot be curtailed unless there is a legitimate public order issue. Since the officer's actions were not justified, the subsequent resistance was not unlawful.
Significance:
Demonstrates the balance between police powers and individual rights. Officers must respect civil liberties; otherwise, actions taken outside of legal authority may invalidate assault charges.
6. DPP v BAXTER [2007] EWHC 2765 (Admin)
Facts:
The defendant was charged with obstructing and assaulting a police officer. He argued that he was not aware of the officer's status, as they were in plain clothes and did not identify themselves until after the confrontation.
Held:
The conviction was quashed. The court emphasised that awareness of the officer’s status is key. The officer had a duty to identify themselves clearly if not in uniform.
Significance:
A person cannot be convicted of assaulting a police officer if they genuinely do not know the person is an officer and the officer fails to make their identity and role clear.
Summary of Key Legal Principles:
| Legal Principle | Case Law | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Officer must be acting lawfully | R v Kerr; DPP v Taylor | Excessive force or unlawful arrest invalidates assault charge |
| Defendant must know victim is police officer | R v Sexton; DPP v Baxter | Identity must be known or obvious |
| Must be intent or recklessness | R v Burns | Accidental contact does not qualify |
| Officers must respect civil liberties | Redmond-Bate v DPP | Arrests must not violate lawful expression |
| Use of proportionate force is key | DPP v Dumbleby | Officers can be resisted if acting unlawfully |
Conclusion:
Assaulting a police officer is a grave offence, but it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the officer was acting within their legal authority and the defendant intentionally or recklessly assaulted them. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that lawful execution of duty is central to these cases. Case law clearly shows that context, officer behaviour, intent, and identification are all critical factors in determining guilt.
RELATED Blog
0 comments