Sign in to follow this  
Em88

Suspect not providing name...

Recommended Posts

I'm a new officer and not too sure what to do when somebody refuses to give their details when you are reporting them for a crime.

I'm sure you've probably seen this video below and I'm pretty sure the officer could arrest the suspect, although he clearly got flustered in front of the camera and forgot his legislation.

What exactly could he arrest him for though? The initial offence of running a red light, as the arrest is nessacary the to ascertain name and address or for obstructing a police officer?

once he's in custody you'd seize his camera which would have all he evidence you'd need in interview. 

 

Edited by Em88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool so in this case you would arrest for failing to stop at a red light. Simple!  Thanks. I'm doing my street duties soon and wanted to make sure I was correct!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'd arrest for the original offence and also obstructing police as the suspect will have committed both offences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd not go with additional obstruction, personally I'd leave that for the lawyers. 

You'd arrest for the original offence with your necessity being to get their name/address for report down the line, as you've no need to interview etc, so once those details are confirmed they'd be released as their arrest would no longer be "necessary".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/05/2017 at 03:35, Sapor62 said:

Personally I'd arrest for the original offence and also obstructing police as the suspect will have committed both offences.

Since when has not providing details been obstruction? Giving fake details but not refusing any. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not effectively process the person without their name and address, which means I am being obstructed from carrying out my duties. I'm going along the lines of "Willful obstruction" which is any act which makes it more difficult for me to effectively carry out my role.

I could simply process the person for the offence in 5 minutes but by refusing to give me your name you are giving me no option but to arrest you as it is my only other means of disposal, making my job as a police officer more difficult.

 

@Sectioned Detection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Sapor62 said:

I can not effectively process the person without their name and address, which means I am being obstructed from carrying out my duties. I'm going along the lines of "Willful obstruction" which is any act which makes it more difficult for me to effectively carry out my role.

I could simply process the person for the offence in 5 minutes but by refusing to give me your name you are giving me no option but to arrest you as it is my only other means of disposal, making my job as a police officer more difficult.

 

@Sectioned Detection

So, you ID an offence, caution the person then after saying "you do not have to say anything" you prosecute them for not saying anything?

Besides the fact caselaw says it's not. Worrying you didn't know that though if you're a cop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sectioned Detection said:

So, you ID an offence, caution the person then after saying "you do not have to say anything" you prosecute them for not saying anything?

Besides the fact caselaw says it's not. Worrying you didn't know that though if you're a cop. 

Can you provide this case law? A custody sergeant will add a charge of obstruction of you refuse pars during booking in so why would I not be able to execute that same power? 

Happy to be proven wrong, the great thing about this forum is that we can discuss opinions and ideas without too many problems. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/05/2017 at 09:35, Sectioned Detection said:

Rice v Connolly (1966) so it's not new.

 

Having just read the transcript it doesn't appear totally apparent to the question in play, Rice had not been identified as having committed an offence. The question being asked on this thread relates to someone whom you have identified as committing an offence, whom you are trying to process who then decides not to give pars, thus making it impossible for you to process them. This is clearly obstructing police and I don't see how it couldn't be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear as it's the legal principal which came from the case. Otherwise every no comment interview would be deemed obstruction.

Perhaps this will help:

Summary of the judgment

The judgment turned on the meaning of the word “wilfully” in the obstruction charge. It was deemed to mean “without lawful excuse” and the judges then considered whether Rice had a lawful excuse for refusing to give his name and address or go to the police box. They decided that he did, because of the legal right to silence. It’s easier to explain by reading the following passage:

"It is quite clear that the appellant was making it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties, and that the police at the time and throughout were acting in accordance with their duties. The only remaining element of the alleged offence, and the one on which in my judgment this case depends, is whether the obstructing of which the appellant was guilty was a wilful obstruction. “Wilful” in this context in my judgment means not only “intentional” but also connotes something which is done without lawful excuse . . . . Accordingly, the sole question here is whether the appellant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my judgment he had. It seems to me quite clear that though every citizenhas a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is that right of theindividual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to accompany those in authority to any particular place, short, of course, of arrest. (Parker, CJ, at page 651H–652B of [1966] 2 AllER)"

Note that giving false information is treated differently from remaining silent:

"In my judgment there is all the difference in the world between deliberately telling a false story, something which on no view a citizen has a right to do, and preserving silence or refusing toanswer, something which he has every right to do.(Parker, CJ, at page 652C"

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.