Key Cases on Police Detention

The lawfulness of detention at a police station is governed by Part IV of PACE 1984. The courts have considered a range of issues arising from the detention framework.

Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire [1999] 1 WLR 662 (Court of Appeal) concerned the failure to conduct a timely review of detention. The court held that the obligation to review detention at the prescribed intervals is mandatory, and that a failure to conduct a review renders the continued detention unlawful from the time the review should have taken place. However, the court also held that a delay in review does not automatically render any evidence obtained during the period of unlawful detention inadmissible: that is a matter for the trial judge under section 78.

Hague v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison [1992] 1 AC 58 (House of Lords) established that a prisoner has no private law claim for false imprisonment arising from conditions of confinement: the relevant tort is limited to cases where the fact of imprisonment itself is unlawful. This principle extends to police detention: a complaint about conditions (such as inadequate food, rest, or medical care) does not ground a false imprisonment claim, but may support a claim for negligence, a complaint to the IOPC, or a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 3, prohibition of inhuman treatment).

Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 39 held that a delay in allowing a detained person access to a solicitor, without lawful justification, did not make the detention itself unlawful but could result in evidence obtained during the period of delay being excluded under the PACE equivalents. The right to legal advice is a fundamental safeguard, and unjustified delays are taken seriously by the courts.

The Supreme Court in R (Haralambous) v Crown Court at St Albans [2018] UKSC 1 considered ex parte applications for warrants of further detention under section 43 of PACE. The court held that while the detained person and their solicitor have a right to attend and make representations, it is permissible for the court to withhold sensitive material from the suspect where necessary in the interests of justice, provided the court itself has seen the material.