Bailiff arrested

[slherts]

Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex, (2000) The Times, April 24; Police Journal Volume 73 No 3 (2000) page 285, dealt with a Breach of the Peace and the Rules for common-law power of arrest.

 

Police were called to the shop of a judgment debtor where a bailiff attempting to enforce a liability order in respect of unpaid rates, was confronted by the debtor who did not wish to part with his assets and was uncooperative. Tempers were raised and the police officer, who thought there would be a breach of the peace, told the bailiff to go and when he refused, arrested him and put him in handcuffs. He was released an hour later without charge. The bailiff sued the police for assault and wrongful imprisonment and the case was heard by an assistant recorder and a jury. The assistant recorder found that the bailiff was entitled to be at the property and had not forced entry, that he had explained to the debtor the reason for his visit and that the debtor had forcibly told the bailiff to leave and had threatened to call friends to prevent the removal of the goods. The assistant recorder held that the police officer thought that the debtor and the bailiff would come to blows, that the bailiff had refused to leave when asked to do so by the officer and that in the circumstances there were reasonable grounds for the officer's belief that a breach of the peace was likely to result. He also held that there was no issue of fact to put before the jury and that the arrest of the bailiff was justified.

 

As to the power to arrest where there was reasonable apprehension of imminent danger of a breach of the peace if the arrestor reasonably believed such breach would be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested, although no breach had yet occurred, See R v Howell (Erroll) [1982] QB 416, 426C; (1981), The Times, April 14. There had been no material upon which it could have been found that Bibby had any intention of assaulting the debtor.

 

In substance, the assistant recorder had found that PC O’Hare reasonably considered that Bibby was acting lawfully but provocatively; that as a result of that provocation a breach of the peace was likely; that any attempt to remove goods scheduled to the walking possession agreement would be resisted by the debtor, with the probable result of violence; so that it was reasonable for him to ask Bibby to go and unreasonable of Bibby to insist on staying, until he had either the money or the goods.

[Ellie968]

So as I read this case - if there is imminent danger of a breach of the peace - the police officer is justified in arresting the bailiff not the debtor - because it is the bailiff who is acting provocatively? This is interesting as bailiffs frequently involve or threatens to involve the police on the grounds that they fear an imminent breach of the peace - but the intention (of the bailfiff) is obviously that it is the debtor who will be charged.

 

Have I understood this correctly?

[Guest Zooman]

and if you read between the lines, the police officer can also arrest a bailiff for trespass is he has gained forceful entry, that's how they normally get arrested, but it takes a strong willed person to force the police into action.

[hhh_88873]

Incorrect in it's entirety. The plain simple fact whether you like it or not is that the decision has laid down precedent in case law that a bailiff acting with lawful authority now cannot be arrested for a breach of the peace or held responsible for the reaction of others upon attendance. That's what the decision actually means.

[havinastella]

Why are you posting on a thread that is over 8 years old?

[hhh_88873]

Because it came up in a search while I was researching some case law relating to this case

[citizenB]

I think the laws relating to bailiffs have changed considerably over the last 8 years and CAG is keeping up to date with them -you just need to look at some of the more current threads.