Atmosphere and Context: Use of Force in the Execution of Duty and Retaliatory Force: Pegram V DPP [2019] EWHC 2673 (Admin)

Pegram was an appeal concerning the extent to which a police officer is considered as acting in the course of his or her duties when using force on another, and whether self-defence may justify the conduct of a defendant who assaults a police officer in the execution of that duty. The appeal also concerned an alleged misdirection as to the appellant’s character; that, however, is outside the scope of this comment. John Pegram (P) took part in a demonstration in Bristol, protesting another demonstration. The police wished to keep the two demonstrations separate and away from the public. It was accepted that P had strayed away from the pack and had diverted away from the agreed route. The victim, PC Millett, grabbed P by the arm in order to get his attention and warn him that he must rejoin the agreed route or he may be liable for a public order offence. During the confrontation (half-way through the warning according to the officer), P swung his arm around and struck the officer in the face. P contended that such contact was accidental. P was convicted of an offence contrary to s 89(1) of the 1989 Act noted above in the magistrates’ court. P unsuccessfully appealed to the Crown Court which reheard the case in full. The Crown Court preferred the evidence of PC Millett finding that he was acting in the course of his duties in taking hold of P. Further, the Court found that ‘[n]o prima facie case of self-defence was raised’, and instead found the defendant liable for the offence based on the recklessness of his conduct. Interestingly, P did not run self-defence in either his summary trial or first appeal to the Crown Court; this being one of the issues raised on appeal to the Divisional Court. P requested the learned judge state a case for the opinion of the Divisional Court. This request was initially rejected, however, following a successful judicial review application (R (on the application of Pegram) v Bristol Crown Court [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)), the case was stated to the Divisional Court. Pegram, therefore, concerns the appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court was tasked with considering three points of law, as follows (at [2]):