Anam Khan represented the Claimant, a former police officer who sued Derbyshire Constabulary for unlawful arrest and detention after officers turned up at his property to arrest him for alleged historic sexual offences. A search of his property was carried out under s.32 PACE to look for ‘sex toys’ alleged to have been used around the time of the alleged offences.
Officers carrying out the arrest were put to proof on the question of necessity pursuant to s.24(5) PACE.
It was argued that:
(i) the Claimant would have attended the police station for voluntary interview;
(ii) any suggestion that the arrest was necessary to protect a vulnerable person (s.24(5)(d)) had failed to consider the circumstances as a whole – see the recent decision of DE v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police  EWHC 146;
(iii) searching for ‘sex toys’ was not a reasonable line of enquiry to further the investigation and totally irrelevant. It was not conducive to a prompt and effective investigation under s.24(5)(e);
(iv) the arresting officer did not make the decision to arrest, it had been made by the investigating officer one month earlier – see O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary  1 ALL E.R. 129.
The jury found that the arresting officer did not honestly believe that the arrest was necessary to carry out a prompt and effective investigation or protect a vulnerable person.
Anam Khan was instructed by Demi Drury of HNK Solicitors.