Obstruction Of Police Prosecutions
What is "Obstruction of Police"?
Obstruction of police is a criminal offence typically prosecuted under Section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996 in England and Wales. It refers to intentionally or recklessly preventing a police officer from carrying out their lawful duties. This offence can occur in many forms, including:
Physically interfering with police activity (e.g., holding back an officer),
Providing false information,
Warning others of police presence (e.g., during a raid),
Refusing to comply with lawful orders.
The offence must involve wilful (intentional) obstruction – mere delay or confusion is not enough.
🔍 Statutory Provision: Section 89(2) Police Act 1996
“Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.”
Penalty: This is a summary offence (tried in Magistrates’ Court only) with a maximum sentence of 1 month imprisonment and/or a fine.
Key Elements to Prove:
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove:
The victim was a constable (or someone assisting a constable),
The officer was acting "in the execution of duty" (lawfully),
The defendant's conduct amounted to wilful obstruction,
The obstruction was not trivial or accidental.
✅ Case Law: Detailed Analysis of Key Cases
1. R v Hinchcliffe [1989]
Facts: The defendant physically blocked a police officer from entering a property to execute a lawful arrest warrant. The officer warned the defendant multiple times.
Held: The court found that the physical prevention of an officer from executing a lawful duty clearly amounted to wilful obstruction. The court emphasised that it need not be violent — mere blocking access was sufficient.
Significance: Demonstrates that physical non-violent acts, if intentional, can still constitute obstruction.
2. Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414
Facts: The defendant, when stopped by police and questioned about a theft in the area, refused to answer questions and walked away.
Held: The Divisional Court held that although citizens may have a moral or social duty to assist the police, there is no legal obligation to do so, and refusing to answer questions alone is not obstruction.
Significance:
A landmark case defining the limits of police powers and the rights of individuals.
Shows that passive refusal or silence is not obstruction, unless accompanied by deception or active interference.
3. R v Bastone and Others [1973]
Facts: A group of defendants formed a human chain to block police from removing squatters from a building. They did not assault the officers, but refused to move after repeated orders.
Held: The obstruction was deliberate and intended to hinder the officers' lawful duties. Convictions for obstruction were upheld.
Significance: Reinforces the principle that collective non-violent resistance, if it interferes with police duty, constitutes obstruction.
4. DPP v Chalmers (1994)
Facts: A defendant, during a police investigation, gave false information to the police, misleading them and wasting significant time.
Held: The court found that deliberately providing false information amounted to obstruction. The deception prevented the police from efficiently carrying out their duty.
Significance: Highlights that misleading police intentionally, even without physical interference, is obstruction.
5. Johnson v Youden [1950] 1 KB 544
Facts: This is a broader case, but in the context of obstruction, it was cited in many cases. It dealt with aiding and abetting offences, particularly in relation to wilfulness and knowledge of unlawfulness.
Held: The court emphasised that to be guilty of a wilful obstruction, the defendant must know or be reckless as to the fact they are obstructing a police officer acting lawfully.
Significance: Clarifies that lack of knowledge that a person is a police officer or that they are acting lawfully could be a defence.
6. Duncan v Jones [1936] 1 KB 218
Facts: The appellant insisted on making a speech near a location where police reasonably feared it might cause a breach of the peace. She refused to move when instructed by a constable.
Held: Her refusal constituted obstruction as the officer was acting lawfully in preventing a breach of the peace, and she wilfully disobeyed the order.
Significance: Shows that obstruction can occur even in a public order context, where the police act to prevent foreseeable disturbances.
⚖️ Defences to Obstruction Charges
Police not acting in execution of duty
If the officer was not acting lawfully (e.g., illegal search or arrest), then obstruction may be justified.
Lack of intent or wilfulness
Accidental interference or misunderstanding may not amount to "wilful" obstruction.
Mistaken identity
Believing the person obstructed was not a police officer could negate the mental element.
Exercise of legal rights
As per Rice v Connolly, simply refusing to answer questions or remaining silent is not unlawful.
📌 Practical Examples of Obstruction
YES (Obstruction):
Blocking a police vehicle with your body.
Giving a false alibi to mislead police.
Filming a police officer while physically interfering with an arrest.
NO (Not Obstruction):
Filming a police officer from a distance.
Remaining silent or refusing to assist an investigation voluntarily.
Asking for a warrant before letting police in.
📝 Conclusion
Obstruction of police is a relatively minor but important public order offence. It hinges on the intentional and active interference with a police officer performing lawful duties. While physical acts like blocking or resisting are clear examples, verbal or deceptive interference can also lead to prosecution. However, individuals retain rights, including the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves, which must be balanced against police powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments