| Rice v Connolly | |
| Court: | High Court: Divisional Court, at Grimsby Quarter Sessions |
| Date Decided: | 3 May 1966 |
| Full Name: | Leonard Rice v Thomas Connolly (Inspector of Humberside Police) |
| Judges: | LORD PARKER C.J., MARSHALL J and JAMES J[1] |
| Citations: | [1966] 2 QB 414, [1966] 2 All ER 649, [1966] 3 WLR 17, 130 JP 322 |
| Opinions: | Per curiam (unanimously): there is no relevant legal duty to assist a police officer at the time and in the circumstances of the present case |
| Prior Actions: | Conviction at Magistrates Court in Grimsby |
Rice v. Connolly (1966) is an English legal precedent holding that there is no strict, general legal duty to assist a police officer prior to any possible arrest or caution, with even basic police enquiries nor to accompany the officer to a requested location.
Leonard Rice on 20 March 1965 would not give his forename, nor full address, nor accompany the officer to a requested place (here, immaterially, a police box). The police prosecuted him as such and magistrates, considering the statutory words "wilfully obstructs", convicted him.[2]
He appealed against conviction: for such obstruction of a constable when in the execution of his duty (contrary to Police Act 1964 s. 51 (3)).
It was held that "although every citizen had a moral or social duty to assist the police, there was no relevant legal duty to that effect in the circumstances of the present case, and the appellant had been entitled to decline to answer the questions put to him and (prior to his arrest) to accompany the police officer".