KA-2024-000208 - [2025] EWHC 1964 (KB)

In my judgment, it was open to the Judge on the evidence to find that PC Havers subjectively believed that it was necessary to arrest the second claimant.

The absence of PC Havers at the trial reduced the quality of the evidence. Nevertheless, he was heard to state his reasons for the arrest on PC Robinson’s BWV footage. That statement was delivered in something approaching shorthand, but that can be explained by the fact that the second claimant was a fellow police officer who would be familiar with the statutory test. PC Havers said that he considered it necessary to make an arrest to protect harm and to conduct a prompt and effective investigation. He confirmed that in writing the following day in a form MG11, admittedly with some inconsistency about whether the feared harm was to one child or all the children.

The objective basis for that belief is challenged for sound reasons, as I explain below, but the test applicable to this ground is subjective belief, not objective basis. In principle, a lack of objective basis could found an inference of a lack of subjective belief, but in this case I am not convinced that the criticism of the objective basis are such as to undermine the Judge’s finding that PC Havers truthfully stated his belief.

Ground 2 therefore fails.