||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 210 (Nov)
||Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
||Emily Cook (instructed by Edward Fail Bradshaw & Waterson) for the defendants.
||Richard Bendall (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Surrey) for the prosecution.
||16 November 2005
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.
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police officer had not amounted to a withdrawal of permission to be on the premises and that when permission had been withdrawn the first defendant had not given the officer a reasonable opportunity to leave the premises before assaulting him.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 .
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary