Law Weblog

R(W) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another, Secretary of State for the Home Department as interested party (2005) QBD

Friday 22 July 2005 at 10:22 pm | In News | Post Comment

[Police powers – arrest – removal – statutory interpretation no power conferred on police to use force in “dispersal zone”]
A 15 year old boy did not like the idea of being taken home by a police officer if he outstayed his welcome in a “dispersal zone”, so he challenged the order that covered the area near where he lived in Richmond, Middlesex.

Lord Justice Brooke said that the central issue was whether the power to “remove” a person under the Act gave the police permission to take juveniles home or gave them the right to use force to take them home (was permissive or coercive).

There were some clear indications that Parliament intended the power to be permissive only. Above all, there was the long standing and clear presumption that Parliament did not intend to authorise tortious conduct except by express provision.

The Act conferred no power on the police or a community support officer to interfere with the movements of someone under the age of 16 who was conducting himself lawfully within a dispersal area between the hours of 9pm and 6am.

The Act merely conferred on the police a very welcome express power to use police resources to take such a person home if he was willing to be taken home.

Despite much confusing press reports this case only focussed on the police power to ‘remove’, and not on the legality of the order or any other area of law.

Weekly Law Report here