Source: http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/arrested_rights/Regina_Howell.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:48:53+00:00

Document:
defendant was convicted of assaulting the arresting officer, but not his colleague.
committed in the immediate future (post, pp. 507H -- 508A, C).
was put in fear of being so harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance (post, p. 509B-C).
unsatisfactory and the conviction for assaulting a police officer stood.
Public Order Act 1936 for committing an offence under section 5 (post, pp. 505H -- 506A).
Christie v. Leachinsky  A.C. 573;  1 All E.R. 567, H.L.(E.).
Gelberg v. Miller  1 W.L.R. 153;  1 All E.R. 291, D.C.
Reg. v. Light (1857) Dears. & B. 332.
Reg. v. Podger  Crim.L.R. 524.
Albert v. Lavin  2 W.L.R. 1070;  1 All E.R. 628, D.C.
Cohen v. Huskisson (1837) 2 M. & W. 477.
Cook v. Nethercote (1835) 6 C. & P. 741.
Coupey v. Henley (1797) 2 Esp. 539.
Grant v. Moser (1843) 5 Man. & G. 123.
Hardy v. Murphy and Wedge (1795) 1 Esp. 294.
Howell v. Jackson (1834) 6 C. & P. 723.
Ingle v. Bell (1836) 1 M. & W. 516.
Pedro v. Diss  2 All E.R. 59, D.C.
Price v. Seeley (1843) 10 Cl. & Fin. 28, H.L.(E.).
Reg. v. Abraham  1 W.L.R. 1270;  3 All E.R. 694, C.A.
Reg. v. Holah  1 W.L.R. 127;  1 All E.R. 106, C.A.
Reg. v. Venna  Q.B. 421;  3 W.L.R. 737;  3 All E.R. 788, C.A.
Reg. v. Wheeler  1 W.L.R. 1531;  3 All E.R. 829, C.A.
Rex v. Bright (1830) 4 C. & P. 387.
Rex v. Curvan (1826) 1 Moo.C.C. 132.
Simlock v. Rhodes (1977) 66 Cr.App.R. 192, D.C.
Spilsbury v. Micklethwaite (1808) 1 Taunt. 146.
Timothy v. Simpson (1835) 1 Cr.M. & R. 757.
Walker v. Lovell  1 W.L.R. 1141;  3 All E.R. 107, H.L.(E.).
Webster v. Watts (1847) 11 Q.B. 311.
Wheeler v. Whiting (1840) 9 C. & P. 262.
prosecution case was that the defendant had violently resisted a lawful arrest for breach of the peace.
the recorder erred in law in failing to rule that the arrest was unlawful.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
A. J. Engel (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
Timothy Raggatt for the Crown.
Cur. adv. vult. April 13.
PANEL: Watkins L.J., Cantley and Hollings JJ.
months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. He appeals against that conviction.
party got out of control. Many of those attending it went into the street outside the house and caused an uproar.
as is known no violence had been used by anyone up to that time.
taken away to be charged.
from the scene denying that they were causing the breach of the peace of which P. C. Lewis said that he accused them.
aroused from their beds and who were in the street where the constables were moving the group on their way.
as not to become more so unless brought to an end.
again. They then exchanged several blows before the defendant was finally subdued.
McNulty and a woman who claimed to have witnessed from nearby what happened between the constables, the defendant and his companions.
we cannot be sure. At best we feel able to say there are indications that the verdict was founded upon there having been a lawful arrest.
was necessary for the purpose.
allowed the trial to proceed to the defendant's conviction by jury.
be put alongside what he told the defendant immediately prior to arrest which was: "You will be arrested for disturbing public order."
and causing further trouble. He saw a number of local residents in their front gardens who were clearly disturbed by what was going on.
use of violence by the defendant as he was following him, or if the defendant was allowed to return to it at the scene outside 12, Guild Street.
evidence available was not sufficient to be considered by the jury for this purpose.
arrestor or where one had been committed and its renewal was threatened.
apprehend any person obstructing him in the execution of his duty."
The comments and commentary upon Podger's case  Crim.L.R. 524, 525 which accompany the report of it are particularly noteworthy.
no previous breach had occurred."
Professor Glanville Williams in his article "Arrest for Breach of the Peace"  Crim.L.R. 578, in which, inter alia, he makes reference to Reg. v.
peson arrested has not yet committed any breach."
We share the opinions expressed in the foregoing quotations.
yet committed any breach or (3) where a breach has been committed and it is reasonably believed that a renewal of it is threatened.
emphasise, be established that it is not only an honest albeit mistaken belief but a belief which is founded on reasonable grounds.
anger in him, and a desire to take instant revenge, than attacks or threatened attacks upon a person's body or property.
or great heat and fury without personal violence, are not generally sufficient."
commission of violence to all acts which are said to be capable of causing a breach of the peace.
He makes a similar criticism of the crisp definition provided by the Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, referred to in Gelberg v.
is involved, meaning by that some affray or violence or possibly disturbance."
The statement in Halsbury is in parts, we think, inaccurate because of its failure to relate all the kinds of behaviour there mentioned to violence.
Furthermore, we think, the word "disturbance" when used in isolation cannot constitute a breach of the peace.
presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.
may arrest an offender without warrant.
believe you are about to commit a breach of the peace." In speaking merely of a "breach of the peace" on arrest the arrestor is not, as Mr.
effect of which would be that he had in fact carried out the arrest for an apprehended breach.
unjustified the criticism of the recorder for leaving it to them.
to, that a lawful arrest for an apprehended breach of the peace had been made.
one can see it is a difficult job that they have to do, but they have to abide by the law just as other people have to abide by the law."
This was followed later on by a satisfactory reminder in, we are glad to observe, summary form of the evidence of P. C.. Hammersley and P. C.
been lawfully arrested. There is no substance in this ground of appeal.
"Now what is the position if it was an unlawful arrest. In those circumstances a person is entitled to use reasonable force to resist the arrest.
whether it was a reasonable thing or not."
same thing. With respect to what otherwise has been helpful assistance provided by Mr. Engel, he plays with words in this submission.
occasioning actual bodily harm which we cannot bring ourselves to regard as in any respect unsafe and unsatisfactory.
For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.