R v Home Secretary, ex p Northumbria Police Authority [1987] EWCA Civ 5; [1989] QB 26
The Home Secretary’s statutory and prerogative powers to supply riot-control equipment without the local police authority’s consent.
Facts
Public disturbances some years earlier resulted in the Home Office opting to create a stock of CS gas alongside plastic baton rounds and associated equipment, for easy access by the police in times of need. Home Office Circular 40/1986 provided for supplies from a central store. Under paragraph 4, equipment could be supplied directly to a chief constable even if the local police authority withheld approval, provided HM Inspector of Constabulary endorsed the chief constable’s assessment of need. Equipment supplied in those circumstances would remain Home Office property.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The Northumbria Police Authority contested the Home Secretary’s power to supply equipment without its consent. It argued that the Police Act 1964 gave police authorities exclusive responsibility for providing equipment and that the proposed arrangements were ultra vires, or outside the Home Secretary’s legal powers.
Issues
Was the Home Secretary empowered to supply the crowd-control equipment under section 41 of the Police Act 1964, or alternatively under the Crown’s prerogative of keeping the peace within the realm? Had the Act displaced any such prerogative, and could equipment be supplied before an actual emergency arose?
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Police Authority’s appeal and allowed the Home Secretary’s cross-appeal. The Divisional Court had rejected the statutory basis but upheld the arrangements under the royal prerogative; it had therefore refused the Authority’s application. The Court of Appeal upheld that result on both grounds.
Section 41 authorised the Home Secretary to provide central organisations and services for promoting police efficiency. Supplying equipment from a central store was such a service. Section 4(4) did not give police authorities a monopoly over supplying equipment, and section 41 did not require their consent. The chief constable’s operational independence was distinct from the Authority’s financial and administrative responsibilities.
Alternatively, the Crown retained a prerogative to keep the peace, exercisable through the Home Secretary. The 1964 Act did not exclude the proposed supply arrangements, and preparations could be made before an emergency arose. Nourse LJ explained that, apart from particular statutory provisions, the prerogative had not been surrendered through the Crown’s assent to the modern system of independent police forces. This did not give the Home Secretary power to direct the chief constable’s policing operations.
Judgment: [1987] EWCA Civ 5. Parallel citations: [1989] QB 26; [1988] 2 WLR 590.
