Obstruction of the Police. A classic case for defining in very broad (‘catch-all’) terms the definition of “obstruction” (and so favoured by the prosecution!).
The reference to this case in the law journals (which you are supposed to quote in court) is [1955] 3 AllER 406, which you read out as, “1955 volume 3, All England Reports, page 406.”
Hinchliffe was the son of the licensee of an inn. One night he came home at 11:17pm. The doors of the inn were locked, but there were lights on inside, and the police were outside, wanting to go in (to check whether licensing laws were being broken). Hinchliffe shouted through the door to warn his parents that the police were outside and not to let them in. Eventually, the door was opened to the police at 11:25pm. They went in, but found no evidence of any offence under the licensing laws.
The suggestion (or assumption) was that Hinchliffe had warned his parents, so that anyone drinking inside could stop or get out of the way and they could clear up the bar, before letting the police in. He was convicted of obstruction of the police by the West Riding magistrates, and appealed by ‘case stated’ (i.e. on a matter of law) to the Divisional Court. He lost the appeal: this is the judgment that dismissed his appeal and upheld the conviction.
The judgment first summarises the provisions of the licensing act, emphasising that it gives the police the right to enter an inn at any time, to investigate or detect possible offences under the act. The important point is that they have a right of entry even if no offence has actually been committed. This means that the police in this case were acting according to their duty by trying to get in.
The judgment then decides that preventing the polce from entry amounted to obstruction, which it defines as follows:
“Obstructing” means, for this purpose, making it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties. (Goddard, LCJ, page 408F)
Hinchliffe v Sheldon is still used as a basic definition of “obstruction of the police.” But see also Rice v Connolly, which adds in an additional element: the obstruction must be “wilful,” meaning “without lawful excuse,” which is defined further in that case.
© Copyright 2001, Andrew Gray
What, “copyright”! Isn’t copyright evil? [ You better read these notes]
This briefing was written by me (with or without help from others) for Trident Ploughshares, but may be used freely and copied/distributed by others. In order to guarantee this freedom, the briefing is copyrighted and licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (formal license statement follows).
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License.”
I am not a lawyer. The briefing is not guaranteed in any way, and is not a substitute for proper legal advice. Feedback and corrections are very welcome, phone 0845 4588 368, email andrew@andrewgray.uklinux.net.
Andrew Gray, TP legal support (England & Wales)
This briefing was last revised: 11/12/2001
(See the changelog and authorship page for revision details.)