Call : 869-465-2241

Emergency No.: 911

Crime Hotline.: 707

Email Support

admin@police.kn

Post Detail

Home   / Post Detail

Authority On Prompt Charging And Unlawful Detention

08 Feb, 2026Admin

The principle that an arrested person must be charged and brought before a court, or otherwise released, as soon as is reasonably practicable is firmly grounded in common-law and constitutional jurisprudence across Commonwealth jurisdictions, including the Caribbean.

A leading authority is Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573 (HL), in which the House of Lords held that arrest and detention must be justified by necessity and lawful purpose. The court emphasized that arrest is not to be used arbitrarily or for convenience, and that once the purpose of the arrest has been achieved, continued detention is unlawful. This case remains foundational in assessing whether detention following arrest is proportionate and legally justified.

In R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Taylor [1992] QB 645, the English Court of Appeal reinforced that detention after arrest must be strictly limited to what is necessary for charging or investigation. Where no further investigation is required, continued detention was found to be unlawful. The court made clear that administrative delay or routine practice cannot justify holding an arrested person once the evidential basis for charge is complete.

Caribbean courts have applied similar reasoning when interpreting constitutional protections of personal liberty. In Thoms v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1982] AC 113 (PC), the Privy Council confirmed that constitutional provisions allowing detention for up to a stated maximum period do not authorize detention for that entire period as a matter of course. The State must demonstrate that detention for the period in question was reasonably necessary in the circumstances. More recently, in Harrikissoon v Attorney General (Privy Council, Caribbean authority), the principle was reiterated that delay in charging or presenting an accused before a court, where no justification exists, renders detention unlawful.

Taken together, these authorities establish a clear rule: detention must end once its lawful purpose is fulfilled. For minor or summary offences where identity is known and no investigation is outstanding, failure to charge and release promptly is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny and may expose the State and officers to civil liability for false imprisonment.