Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 210 (Nov)
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Judge:

Crane J

Representation Emily Cook (instructed by Edward Fail Bradshaw & Waterson) for the defendants.
  Richard Bendall (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Surrey) for the prosecution.
Judgment Dates: 16 November 2005

Catchwords

Criminal law - Assault - Assault on police officer in execution of duty - Withdrawal of permission for officer to be on property - Whether justices entitled to conclude that defendant's initial offensive remarks not amounting to a clear withdrawal of permission for officer to be on premises - Whether officer continuing to act in execution of duty - , s 89.

The Case

In the circumstances, the justices had been entitled to find that the initial offensive remarks by the first defendant to the police officer had not amounted to a withdrawal of permission to be on the premises and that when permission had been withdrawn the first defendant had not given the officer a reasonable opportunity to leave the premises before assaulting him. Moreover, the justices had been entitled to find that following the assault by the first defendant the officers had continued to act in the execution of their duty and had been assaulted by the second defendant while doing so, contrary to s89(1) of the .

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.