9

It is reported in the news that during an arrest of suspected protestors a police officer instructed one person that they could not drink their coffee with a reason that it may be poisoned. This would generally be interpreted as an instruction:

Jenkins was told not to sip his coffee. “The officer said: ‘You can’t do that, it could be poisoned or something.’

In such a situation would this instruction hold any legal force? If so, what law would one be breaching if one continued to drink one's coffee? Would the situation be different if it was important for you to do so, for example if it was to avoid a hypoglycemic episode? I am asking from a strictly legal perspective, I am aware that it is likely to be in one's best interest to follow such instructions even if one is not required to do so.

User65535
  • 10,342
  • 5
  • 40
  • 88

1 Answers1

1

In , the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police Act 1996 govern the relevant scope of police powers to your question.

Under Section 24(5)(c)(i) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police can arrest someone (without a warrant) if they have reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary to prevent harm to themselves or others.

If the officer genuinely believed the coffee was poisoned, they could justify preventing its consumption to protect life or prevent harm. However, this belief must be reasonable. The police also have a common law duty to preserve life.

Under Section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996, wilful obstruction of a constable in the execution of their duty is an offence.

If the individual knowingly ignored a reasonable instruction, it could arguably constitute obstruction. However, this would, again, depend on whether the officer’s concern was reasonable.

In the scenario of medical necessity that you pose, the situation changes as long as the police are informed of the medical necessity. The above law requires the police to act both proportionately and reasonably. The threshold for belief in the coffee being poisoned is likely to be much higher if the individual has a medical need to consume it.

In general, a mere suspicion that an individual's coffee was poisoned, without any good reason to think so, would not be sufficient grounds for an arrest without a warrant if the individual ignored the instruction. However, if the coffee was known by the officer and the individual consuming it to be poisoned, then it is likely that ignoring the instruction could lead to an arrest. This would be for that individual's own safety.

Summary: It is unlikely that ignoring such a statement would have any legal consequences, though it would, of course, depend on the facts. It is more likely that the true facts of any case like this would fall somewhere in between the two extremes discussed above. It would be up to a court to apply the law to the exact facts.

FD_bfa
  • 6,468
  • 1
  • 21
  • 80