Conditional Discharge in Assault Emergency Worker Case

We represented a vulnerable client of good character. The police attended her address following a call-out related to a nearby road traffic incident. She allowed the police into her address but obstructed them from going upstairs, which the police said led to her being restrained and causing scratch marks to an officer. We queried whether the level of restraint used by the officers was proportionate in the circumstances.

When considering this case, we questioned both the use of the search power under section 17 of PACE 1984, which was explicitly referenced by the officers, and their poor explanation of it to our client. Under section 17, the police can enter a property in an attempt to save a life, prevent injury to someone, or prevent serious damage to property. The provision is not explained in particularly clear terms in the police witness statements, which only seem to refer to explaining they could search to 'see if someone was injured.'

We could not be sure, based on the limited material served, that the police had proper grounds to enter and search the address. We had been given limited disclosure about the road traffic call-out and how it was connected to her address.

We hoped to submit an application to dismiss the case on this basis, and to support this, we submitted two detailed applications for disclosure. The first was successful, allowing us to review police reports of the incident. However, it prompted further queries, naming other individuals and addresses. We again applied for further disclosure, as there remained a lack of firm evidence explaining why the police attended and searched our client’s address.

Despite our efforts to pursue an application to dismiss, our client decided to enter a guilty plea and bring an end to the proceedings. Her barrister presented her good character and an excellent set of submissions regarding her vulnerabilities and the circumstances of the case. Our client received a conditional discharge only, allowing her to preserve her good character.

She was incredibly grateful for this result and the ongoing support of her team.

Phoebe Coleman was the solicitor with conduct of this case, assisted by paralegal Natasha Hardaker. Justin Yang of Crucible Law was instructed.