Hotels and R v ROSSO

I’m getting several queries about police powers under the MHA when the venue is a hotel or a hotel room – so we need to talk about the case of R v Rosso (2003).  It is a very misunderstood case, because the verdict of the Appeal Court gives the opposite impression to the one you need to walk away with, unless you absorb the full judgment.

So attention to detail is key, here!

Mr ROSSO refused police officers access to a hotel room he was in when they attended with two doctors and an AMHP to assess and detain him under s2 of the Mental Health Act.  In the course of the confrontation where he attempted to shut the door on the police, he produced a knife and inflicted a grievous bodily harm injury to one of the officers and was arrested.  In court, he argued that as he was in a hotel room, that the police had no more right to enter it than they would have had to enter his home and that he was entitled to deny them access as trespassers without a s135(1) warrant.  As such, he was not guilty of assault, he claimed.  The Crown Court took a different view and he was found guilty of GBH assault and sentenced to a restricted hospital order under 37/41 of the Mental Health Act.

He appealed against both conviction and sentence in the Court of Appeal and it was rejected – the police officers did not need a warrant to enter the hotel room because the hotel managers had given them permission to enter.

This is the bit that everyone remembers and only today, I’ve had the question asked and been told that officers had seen a summary of this case and concluded that they could, therefore, use section 136 of the Mental Health Act in a hotel room.  No, you can’t!  You ordinarily would need a warrant to enter a hotel room – let me explain:


This case is misunderstood because of one important feature, often ignored in the summaries and their interpretation, and it surrounds whether Mr ROSSO had a right of exclusive occupation –

He had paid to stay in the hotel and been placed in Room 3 for the duration of his stay.  After a few days, having discovered that the television in his room was not working, hotel staff had agreed to him using the television in Room 9 – purely for the purposes of watching television and for no other purpose.  He otherwise remained a guest in Room 3.  So the expectation of privacy he would have had in his own room, for which he had paid, was not the same as in the room where they had allowed him on a casual basis to watch television.  Were Mr ROSSO to have been found in Room 3 when the various professionals arrived, he would have been under no obligation to open the door and entitled to refuse access to it, unless anything agreed in the hotel’s general terms and conditions dictated otherwise.

This is why the ruling actually means the opposite to what judges are thought to have ruled: they were commenting on this unusual arrangement in which he has borrowed an additional room with consent – most people conclude it was generally applicable to all hotel occupations.

It really wasn’t! —

  • You can’t use s136 in a hotel room that has been paid for by a hotel guest;
  • You would need a warrant to force entry to the room unless another statutory provision applied.
  • It’s important that officers understand the legal relationship a person in a hotel has to the room they are in.
  • The rest of the hotel is like any other place – is it somewhere the public can freely access, on invitation or otherwise?  Then, s136 is available as an option.

Alles Klar?!

IMG_0053IMG_0052Winner of the President’s Medal from
the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award.


3 thoughts on “Hotels and R v ROSSO

  1. Interesting. I got put on a s136 whilst asleep in my own tent at a festival once. I asked quite a lot of people about the legality of this, but nobody seemed terribly sure – what do you think?
    I reckon they were wrong to put me on a s136 while I was fast asleep, based only on third party accounts of what I’d been doing earlier (which weren’t true), but again I got lots of conflicting opinions.

  2. Blimey! Them fingers work fast!

    2bf today’s v bright officer was not minded to use Sec136 & it was discussed as part of a wider discussion in terms of what might be possible – I fear perhaps something got lost in translation between Geordie & Mick ☺️ it seems that other statutory provision applied & the situation has been resolved in a positive & lawful manner. The situation was also differnt in that the officers had been called, there where no medics or AMHP present – no assessing team or MHA Assessment.

    & I admit that everyday is a school day & I very much appreciate your support with the matter – thank u MHC 😄

    As I often say – the man very definitely knows his stuff 😄

    Your view on this Plz ? If the hotel guest has not paid their bill & defaulted, overstayed their welcome if you will & are simply refusing to engage in resolving the matter & locked in the room. Will they have exclusive occupation rights?

  3. So if someone booked a hotel room with the intention of committing suicide there, would the police have any powers to enter the hotel room if they believed the person’s life to be at risk?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s