hello and welcome to episode three and lesson three of our law of thought series now in our previous episode episode two you would recall that we treated the thought of assault where we established that in order to be successful in an action of assault one needs to establish all the elements of battery except the element of physical contact one must prove the following one must prove intentional interference one must also prove the requisite State of Mind of immediate or imminent physical contact one must also prove that the plaintive had reasonable apprehension and it should also be established that there was a positive act by the defendant in today's episode we will deal with the thought of unlawful arrest we are going to identify the elements of the thought for law for the rest and highlights the major principles you would need to explain these elements this will also help us appreciate how they are applied accordingly we are also going to look at how a private individual could arrest as compared to how a police officer could arrest we'll look at the principles governing arrests by warrants as well so to begin with what is the thought of unlawful arrest everyone is entitled to freedom from physical restraint and is protected against unlawful interference of his freedom of movement and personal Liberty the thought of unlawful arrest therefore secures these freedoms and rights the law on unlawful arrests could be founded in three sources of law namely at common law the criminal procedure act 1960 act 30 as amended by nrcd 235 and articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Ghana 1992 now at common law the position on unlawful arrest um as follows this was laid down in linski versus Christi by Viscount Simon LJ one if a police man arrest without warrant upon Reasonable Suspicion of felony or of other crimes of aort which does not require a warrant he must in ordinary circumstances inform the person arrested of the the true ground of arrest he is not entitled to keep the reason to himself or to give a reason which he is which is not the true reason he's not entitled to keep the reason to himself or to give a reason which is not the true reason in other words a citizen is entitled to know what charge or on what suspicion he is being seized two if the citizen is not so informed but is nevertheless seized the policeman apart from certain exceptions is liable for false imprisonment three the requirement that the person arrested should be informed of the reason why he is seized naturally does not exist if the circumstances are such that he must know the general nature of the alleged offense for which he is detained four the require that he should be so informed does not mean that technical or precise language need be used the matter is a matter of substance and turns on the elementary proposition that in this country a person is prima fasy entitled to his freedom and is only required to submit to restraints on his freedom if he knows in substance the reason why he has claimed that this restraint should be imposed five the person arrested cannot complain that he has not been supplied with the above information as and when he should be if he himself produces a situation which makes it practically impossible for him example where he occasions an immediate Counterattack or where that particular person attempts running away or actually runs away he further stressed that the May well be other exceptions to the general rule in addition to the five principles indicated above and the above propositions are not intended to constitute a formal or complete code but to indicate the general principles of our law on a very important matter these principles equally apply to a private person who arrest on suspicion if a policeman who entertained a reasonable suspicion that X has committed a felony were at Liberty to arrest him and March him off to a police station without giving any explanation of why he was doing this the Prima fasy right of personal Liberty would be Gravely infringed no one I think would have proove a situation in which when the person arrested asked for the reason the policeman replied that has nothing to do with you come along with me on the reasonability of the suspicion and its consequences on a private person arresting as against a police officer arresting sir ruus Isaacs in the case of water V wh Smith and Sons clearly explained the principle that an arrest by a private person is lawful only where the offense for which the person is being arrested has in fact been committed and the person has reasonable cause to believe that the person he is arresting is the one who is committing that's felony however the police are unreasonable suspicion to prove that an offense has actually been committed but is not necessarily to be the person arrested unlike the private person again Lord diplock LG in dingson versus Caffrey reemphasized the principle by stating that the rule that a person who arrests detains a or prosecutes a suspected felon commits no actionable wrong if he acts honestly and reasonably applies alike to private person and to police officers but what his reasonable conduct in the circumstances May differ according to whether the arrest store is a private person or a police officer a private person can only arrest if he reasonably believes that an offense has in fact been committed whereas the policeman is is to arrest if he reasonably believes that an offense has been committed the onus probandi or burden of proof lies on their ReStore in all others the rule of reasonableness applies he further explains that since arrest involves trespass to the person and any trespass to the person is prima fasy torturous the the onus lies on the arrester to justify the trespass by establishing reasonable and probable cause for the trespass the trespass by an arrester continues so long as he retains custody of the arrested person and he must justify the continuance of his custody by showing that it was reasonable what is reasonable conduct on the part of a police officer in this respect may not be the same as what would be reasonable conduct on the part of a private arrester Lord denin on the same case in explaining what would constitutes reasonable and probable cause in such a matter use the objective test which is that whether a reasonable man assumed to know the law and possessed of the information which in fact was possessed by the arrester would believe that there was reasonable and probable cause in arresting the person let's look at some decisions by the ghanian court in support of the five requirements at common law in aanti versus republic an J established that a lawful arrest by a police officer is done by first showing of his identity second by telling the person that he is being arrested third the reasons for so arresting and forth by touching him take note that this principle in an goes to affirm all the above requirements but particularly the first requirement in chrisy versus leiny and aalu J in tando versus U reaffirm this requirement also section 7 of Acts 30 affirmed the third and fifth principle in Christi versus leiny in the following words unless the arreste is caught in flagrant decto the arrestor shall inform the arreste of the cause of arrest where he is acting under a warrant notify the arreste of the substance of the warrant and show it to him if he so desires see the case of Yao versus cner which in particular affirmed the fifth principle also banet AG CJ in assumi bumi versus Attorney General affirmed the fifth principle by stating that the duty to inform a person of the reasons for his arrest is relieved if the person under the circumstances knew the reason why he's being arrested or creates a situation that makes it impossible for the one arresting to inform him of the reason the person arrested cannot complain that he has not been supplied with the above information as and when he should be if he himself produces a situation which makes it practically impossible to inform him an example by immediate Counterattack or by running away Nicole J in mahajna versus Secretary of State for home Department supported the fourth requirement by saying a person arrested must be given sufficient information in a language he understands so as to know the reason for his being arrested on affirmation of the fourth requirements in the case of Christie versus leeski wolf LG in Abasi versus Commissioner of police held that a person arresting need not specify a particular crime for which he is arrested or use any technical language it is sufficient if the person being arrested understands the reason why he's being arrested how however if a person only goes to make a complaint to the police will that person be liable for unlawful arrest if the police arrest the person the complaints goes against in the case of inuma versus FY Chum J answered this question in the negative by holding that for a person to be liable for an arrest effected by the police he must have actually authorized and directed the police off officer to effect the arrest a person incurs no liability if he only makes a complaint and the police officer acts on his own discretion the fact that a person is acquitted following an arrest does not necessarily render the arrest unlawful let's look at some statutory Provisions under act 30 and the constitution on this particular area of thoughts the general Provisions in act 30 relating to arrest are that one under section three a person being arrested must be touched section four also states that the occupant of a premises must permit the arrestor to perform his duties where the arrestor is holding an arrest warrant section five also states that the person conducting the arrest May likewise break out to liberate himself self where he is being attacked section six says the Dignity of the person being arrested must be respected when arresting section 7 says unless the arreste is caught in flagrant Delo or inight physically the arrestor shall inform the arreste the cause of the arrest where he is acting under a warrant notify the arreste of the substance of the warrant and show it to him if he so desires Section 8 says the arreste is to be decently searched and all things found on him placed in safe custody section 9 continues as the arreste must take all the items on him dispatched to a police station or any other place where the arreste can be taken and to be told without delay of the complaint against against him the arreste is to be given reasonable facilities for obtaining legal advice taking steps to furnish bail and making arrangements for his defense or release section 14 States any private person arresting without warrant shall without unnecessary delay hand the arreste over to a police officer or a police station or take him to the nearest police station section 15 says a person taken into custody without warrant shall be released not later than 48 hours unless is earlier brought before a court he can be bonded with or without Charities to appear before such court or police station or place at such time is situated in the bond we must note that as indicated in the beginning of the episode you must read article 14 of the Constitution and the case of Martin K versus attorney general the valedictory judgments by sofa kufu CJ as she done was the judgment on the 48 hour rule in article 14 let's move on to arrests without warrant in Ghana how can a police officer arrest without a warrant section 10 of act 30 clarifies that a police officer May arrest without warrant a person who a commits an offense in the presence of the police officer B arrest a police officer in the execution of that police officer's Duty C has escaped or attempt to escape from lawful custody D possessed an Implement adapted or intended for use to unlawfully enter a building and does not give a reasonable excuse for the possession of the implement or E possesses a thing which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property a police officer May arrest without warrant a person whom the police officer sus on reasonable grounds of a having committed an offense or B having been about to commit an offense in order to prevent the commission of the offense C of being about to commit an offense where the police officer finds that person in any Highway yard building or other place during the night D of being a person for whom a warrant of arrest has been issued by a court e of being a deserter from the Armed Forces or of having been concerned with an act committed outside the Republic which if committed in the Republic would have been punishable as an offense and for which that person is under an enactment liable to be arrested and detained in the Republic let's look at how a private person arrest can happen without a warrant this first one to section 12 of act 30 under this provision one a private person may arrest without warrant another person if that person in the presence of that private person commits a an offense involving the use of force or violence B an offense by which bodily harm is caused to another person C an offense in the nature of stealing or fraud D an offense involving injury to public property or E an offense involving injury or property owned by or in the lawful care or custody of that person two a private person may arrest without warrant a person whom that private person reasonably suspects of having committed any of the five offenses mentioned above where an offense of that nature has been committed in the case of leis and Co limited versus teams Lord Porter held as follows where a private person arrests his duty is to take the arrested person to the police station or judge as soon as he reasonably can and not immediately also remember that we said early on by Justice Isaac's diog LG and Lord Denning on the Reasonable Suspicion in summary the law allows a private individual to arrest another on suspicion however three conditions must be satisfied otherwise the arrest will be deemed unlawful and these are firstly that any of the five offenses stated is in fact found to have been committed second that a private person establishes the commission of any of these five offenses on Reasonable Suspicion and third that the person who actually committed the offense established is the person actually arrested by the private person in conclusion on arrest with a warrant which is issued by a judge you may read section 71 to 81 of act 30 to see the law on that effect this is the end of our third episode we hope that you learned and you will join us for our next episode which will be on false imprisonment don't forget to like comment share and spread the word on what is happening on this channel thank you