Police Requiring Name and Address: Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002

Generally speaking, no-one in England and Wales is obliged to provide their name and address to a police officer who asks for it.

A few notable exceptions are:

• If a person is suspected of an offence and refuses to give their details, that may well necessitate their arrest to confirm their identity and assist in any investigation;
• If a person is driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, then a police officer in uniform can require the production of their driving licence;
• If a police officer in uniform has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is engaging in, or has engaged in, anti-social behaviour, then they can require that person's name and address.

It is that last exception, conferred by section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is the focus of today's article.

Section 50(1) of the Act states: If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has engaged, or is engaging in, anti-social behaviour, he may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.

Section 50(1A) of the Act goes on to define anti-social behaviour as having the same meaning as in section 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Police Act 2014, disregarding subsection (2) of that section, namely:

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;

(b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises; or

(c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

Section 50(2) makes it an offence for any person required to give their name and address under section 50(1) to refuse to do so, or to provide a false or inaccurate name or address. The maximum penalty for either of these offences is a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

A reader has informed me that social media auditor "Auditing Britain" (as previously mentioned here), was recently charged with an offence under section 50(2)(a) in that he refused to provide his name and address to a uniformed police officer who suspected him of anti-social behaviour.

As there is a chance that proceedings are still ongoing, I shall not comment on the specifics - other than to say that based on my observations I think the legislation has been applied correctly.

You can view Auditing Britain's footage here (and in follow ups to that video).

Update (24/1/24): Auditing Britain, real name Reda Bouadi-Clifton, attended trial at Highbury Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 8th January 2024. 

He was cleared of an offence under section 50(2)(a) of the Police Reform Act 2002. 

Having watched the footage several times, the Bench concluded that the manner of his arrest was unlawful because PC Justice exceeded the powers set out in the legislation by demanding his date of birth in addition to his name and address. 

Counsel for Bouadi-Clifton made a half-time application that due to the unlawful arrest there was no case to answer. The Bench agreed.

Bouadi-Clifton will now be in a position to make a civil claim against the Met Police for assault and false imprisonment, which we'll no doubt hear all about on his YouTube channel. He'll also be able to sue them for his legal costs in defending the case. That'll be thousands more of taxpayers' money needlessly wasted thanks to police inefficiency.

My thanks to the reader who sent me this update.