Woman Not Guilty Biting Police After Arrest Necessity Challenged Willesden Magistrates Court 2026

Our client, a female of previous good character with no prior convictions or cautions, has been acquitted at Willesden Magistrates’ Court today. She was facing a charge of assaulting a police officer after an incident arising from mental health concerns about her.

The Circumstances

The client was initially detained by police officers at the St George’s Shopping Centre in Harrow. Officers had responded to reports of mental health concerns and investigated whether she was displaying unusual behaviour. There was no mental health intervention required. 

During the encounter, officers accused her of presenting a false identity document (driving licence), an allegation she consistently denied. Rather than seizing the ID document and de-escalating the situation or offering a voluntary interview at a police station, the attending officer moved to arrest her. The defendant was shocked, as she had been cooperating with the police for several minutes and posed no risk. She had been having polite communications with the officers, and then they suddenly arrested her and attempted to apply handcuffs in a rear stack. 

As the officer attempted to place her in handcuffs, she became terrified by the level of force used. In a state of severe distress and shock, she fell to the floor and lightly bit the officer’s hand in a spontaneous reaction to what she perceived as an imminent assault by them. 

How We Assisted

The client initially had no legal representation ahead of her trial. Due to the nature of the allegations, our firm was appointed by the court under Section 38 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) to prevent the vulnerable defendant from having to cross-examine the police officer directly. This is to prevent the defendant from cross-examining the assaulted officer and diminishing his evidence. 

Our senior lawyer, Mr Zeb, was instructed just 30 minutes before the trial was due to begin. Despite the strict time constraints, Mr Zeb thoroughly reviewed the evidence and identified critical breaches of police procedure in relation to the lawfulness of the arrest and the subsequent use of force.

During a robust cross-examination of the arresting officer, Mr Zeb systematically challenged the prosecution's case by focusing on:

PACE Code G (Paragraph 2.9 and Note 2E): Mr Zeb cross-examined that under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, an arrest is only lawful if it is strictly necessary. The officer had entirely failed to consider less intrusive alternatives like arrest, street bail or a vountary interview.

Lack of Necessity: There was no valid justification to arrest the client on the spot. The officer could and should have invited her to attend a voluntary interview at a later date once the licence had been checked with the DVLA.

Disproportionate Use of Force: There was no objective reason to use handcuffs. The client was a vulnerable individual experiencing a mental health crisis and posed no realistic risk to the officers or the public.

Self-Defence and Spontaneous Reaction: Mr Zeb demonstrated that the client's actions were a direct, spontaneous reaction to the excessive force used against her. Her fear was heightened by the fact that she had previously been a victim of assault.

The Outcome

Following Mr Zeb’s detailed cross-examination, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recognised that the officer’s actions could not be legally justified. A senior prosecutor was called for advice to intervene mid-trial, and the CPS advocate formally offered no evidence, concluding that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. The police agreed to return her driving licence, and no offences had been committed in this regard. 

The District Judge formally entered a not-guilty verdict, allowing our client to maintain her unblemished good character.

In closing the case, the District Judge highly commended the excellent service provided by Mr Zeb at such exceptionally short notice. The Judge also welcomed the CPS's decision to drop the charges, noting that while the officer may have acted in good faith, the arrest and use of force did not meet the required legal thresholds.

This case does not give authority to resist officers at all!  We always advise compliance with police officers. 

Our deep expertise in PACE, specifically regarding Code G compliance and the proportionality of force, ensured that a vulnerable woman was protected from a wrongful conviction. If you or a family member is facing charges relating to an arrest where excessive force was used, contact our specialist criminal defence team for expert representation.

• To help us review your situation, please let us know:
• Have you been charged or are you currently on bail?
• Is there any body-worn video footage of the incident?
• Do you have any medical or mental health records from the time of the event?