Court

HANNINGFIELD SPECIAL REPORT:
Judge - 'Detention Was Unlawful'
Weds 20th Feb 2013, Yellow Advertiser

MR JUSTICE Eady ruled that Lord Hanningfield's detention at Braintree police station after his arrest was unlawful.

He said in his judgement that even Essex Police barrister Andrew Warnock QC had admitted that if the arrest itself was unlawful, the detention must be unlawful too.

He said: “It is acknowledged by Mr Warnock that if the original arrest had been unlawful, the subsequent detention could not be regarded in itself as lawful simply because the custody officer did not have the same information laid before him.”

In the trial, custody sergeant Ashley Seymour testified that if he had known more about the the case, he may have questioned the need the detain the peer.

The court heard that a custody sergeant has an 'independent' role and must scrutinise police officers' reasons for arrest before deciding whether detention is necessary.

However, Sgt Seymour admitted that it was his tendency at the time to accept officers' reasons without question and that he did not always fill out his paperwork properly.

He admitted that he was supposed to write down every reason for a suspect’s arrest but had got into a habit of only jotting down one.

He said: “I think I was in a habit of not necessarily recording every reason that was given to me. I can only say that I should have recorded more information.”

He told Mr Justice Eady he had since begun filling out the paperwork properly.

The officer said he did not remember what officers had told him about Hanningfield’s arrest, but insisted: “If I had any doubt, I would not have authorised detention.”

However, he admitted on the stand that he did not know about what Mr Bowers described as Hanningfield’s ‘proven track record’ of voluntarily cooperating with police.

The court heard that Hanningfield had taken part in a voluntary interview with Metropolitan Police over his House of Lords expenses and had even handed receipts over to prosecutors.

Sgt Seymour said that if he had known about Hanningfield's record of cooperation, it may have changed his decision.

He testified: “It might have led me to question, ‘had that voluntary route been considered?’”

Back to Lord Hanningfield Trial

Back to Court

Back to Portfolio