Sign in to follow this  
Mark101

Former senior officer Duncan McCausland threatens to sue old force…..

Recommended Posts

Interesting replies on the front page of police oracle about the above subject.

 

Ex-PNSI officer says decision to arrest him was disproportionate and unnecessary as he would have voluntarily co-operated fully with any investigation……………..

 

&

 

15/12/15: A high-profile Liverpool solicitor won a five-year battle to clear his name after being unlawfully arrested by Merseyside Police.

James Parry was awarded £9,000 compensation after a judge found that police wrongfully arrested the solicitor when he voluntarily attended a police station for an interview.

 

The Formby dad-of-two was called to answer a theft allegation made by a former practice partner after a fall-out in 2010.

Mr Parry, 54, was told that because he was attending voluntarily to the police station inBirkenhead for interview, there was no need to arrest him.

But when he got to the station, the lawyer of 21 years was arrested on suspicion of stealing money from his former firm, Birkenhead-based Nadim Associates Solicitors

He was released on bail after interview over five hours later.

 

No charges were brought and the police later confirmed that no further action would be taken in respect of the theft allegation.

At Liverpool County Court a judge decided that it was not necessary to have arrested the solicitor and that he was deliberately misled by the arresting officer.

 

…………never knew anything about this case and never knew how complicated it can get at court regarding the necessity test etc………..interesting, certainly learnt something from googling test cases. 

 

J Pary judgement: The most common defence to discharge the burden of proof is that the Defendant police force (through the arresting police officer) was carrying out a lawful arrest.

Sections 24 and 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as amended) show that the following conditions for a lawful arrest are necessary:

1.            the arresting officer honestly suspected the arrested person was involved in the commission of a criminal offence (the subjective test);

2.            the arresting officer held that suspicion on reasonable grounds (the objective test);

3.            the arresting officers’ reasons for effecting an arrest amount to a reasonable belief that the arrest was necessary, usually to allow the prompt & effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question (the necessity test);

4.            the officer informed the arrested person of the fact & grounds of arrest as soon as reasonably practicable (the section 28 test); and

5.            the arresting officer’s exercise of his or her discretion to arrest was reasonable in public law terms because PACE confers a discretion, not a duty to arrest (the Wednesbury test).

Edited by Mark101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are, to a huge extent, between a rock and a hard place. We are coming under increasing pressure from the judiciary not to proceed by summons/postal requisition for a wide range of offences, as it delays a suspect's entry into the justice system. They want us to charge instead.

And that is where the problems start as clearly you can only charge someone who has been arrested. My argument is that, if your ultimate intention is likely to be to charge, then that goes towards your necessity at the outset. But you try getting that by a custody sergeant.

It's really no good these directives coming from on high when we are bound by PACE to do something rather different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are, to a huge extent, between a rock and a hard place. We are coming under increasing pressure from the judiciary not to proceed by summons/postal requisition for a wide range of offences, as it delays a suspect's entry into the justice system. They want us to charge instead.

And that is where the problems start as clearly you can only charge someone who has been arrested. My argument is that, if your ultimate intention is likely to be to charge, then that goes towards your necessity at the outset. But you try getting that by a custody sergeant.

It's really no good these directives coming from on high when we are bound by PACE to do something rather different.

 

 

Putting someone in front of a court quicker is not part of code G it does not go towards the necessity at the outset at all.

 

In general cops knowledge and application of code G is woeful.

 

- "I have arrested this juvenile for possession of £1 worth of cannabis"

ok then whats the necessity for his arrest?

"Er, to protect him from suffering harm by taking the drugs" 

The drugs you have already seized and have in your pocket?

"Yes"

Get him out of my custody suite now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DV arrests are the worst. Protect a vulnerable person is often rellied on when it clearly doesn't apply. Or to set bail conditions which isn't a valid reason either.

 

 

Yup i am sick of going on about the "bail conditions" line especially for shoplifters.

 

Its "to prevent further loss of property because the person is a persistent shoplifter and i would like to impose bail conditions in order to do this"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is No 5 on the above list that officers don't answer and to tell the truth, I did not really know much about it while I was on neighbourhood policing as we dealt with voluntary interviews most of the time. It is only since I have come back and found custody sgt asking many more questions than before. I asked a Sgt, why all the questions and seemingly they had a training session by a lawyer about the importance of evidence…………..but no others got the training………brilliant. 

 

5.            the arresting officer’s exercise of his or her discretion to arrest was reasonable in public law terms because PACE confers a discretion, not a duty to arrest (the Wednesbury test).

 

Officers are good at the first four points but fail on the final point, as many do not know much about it. Many officers i have spoken too think as long as they name one of points in 24(5) a-f then that is it. They don't realise that they have to explain how they came to that reason and the grounds for it.

 

I am surprised more people don't complain about arrest that don't go anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting someone in front of a court quicker is not part of code G it does not go towards the necessity at the outset at all.

 

There are plenty who would disagree with you. The need for a prompt and effective investigation continues throughout the course of that investigation, not just immediately following arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty who would disagree with you. The need for a prompt and effective investigation continues throughout the course of that investigation, not just immediately following arrest.

The same could be said for a voluntary interview, throughout the course of that investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "Voluntary Interview" always amazes me. If they will not agree to a "Voluntary Interview" then they would be arrested.  It also allows suspects to think about and know of the case and prepare their nefarious stories as a defence.  Far better to catch them off guard. Arrest them and you can get a Police warrant and search for further evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "Voluntary Interview" always amazes me. If they will not agree to a "Voluntary Interview" then they would be arrested. It also allows suspects to think about and know of the case and prepare their nefarious stories as a defence. Far better to catch them off guard. Arrest them and you can get a Police warrant and search for further evidence.

If only we'd thought of that!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "Voluntary Interview" always amazes me. If they will not agree to a "Voluntary Interview" then they would be arrested.  It also allows suspects to think about and know of the case and prepare their nefarious stories as a defence.  Far better to catch them off guard. Arrest them and you can get a Police warrant and search for further evidence.

Hmmmmm…….the voluntary interview takes place straight away, they will have the same time to think about the job while travelling to the station or custody. If they refuse interview at that time then they get arrested, this complies with S24(5) straight away……….get a warrant!……..it is a nightmare getting warrants now but can use PACE.

 

Saying that, in R v Hanningfield the officer arrested the MP using (3) causing loss or damage to property and carried out a search of his premises under Pace and was criticised at court for not getting a warrant before hand. The officer failed to give reasonable grounds for choosing the necessity test and MP won unlawful arrest & £1000.

 

Sometimes we can never win………………..I am surprised this is not happening more often………...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.