Christie v Leachinsky
A person who is arrested must be told the true reason for the arrest.
Facts
Police officers in Liverpool arrested Mr Leachinsky, a dealer in waste rags, telling him that he was being arrested under the Liverpool Corporation Act 1921 for unlawful possession of goods. In fact, that Act did not give them power to arrest him in the circumstances, and the real reason for the arrest was that they suspected he had stolen a bale of cloth, a felony for which they could have arrested him without a warrant. Mr Leachinsky was released and sued the officers for false imprisonment.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the arrest was unlawful. Viscount Simon said that, if a policeman arrests without warrant upon reasonable suspicion of felony, he must in ordinary circumstances inform the person arrested of the true ground of arrest, because a person is entitled to know why he is being deprived of his liberty, so that he can, for example, explain the misunderstanding or give his name and address. The requirement does not apply if the circumstances make the reason obvious, or if the person makes it impossible to tell him. The principle is now in section 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Related cases on civil liberties: expression, assembly, privacy and police powers
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Beatty v Gillbanks (1882) 9 QBD 308
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218
- Gillan v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 45
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
