15. Police Powers

  • Police officers detect and prevent crime, bring offenders to justice, keep the peace, and protect people and their property from injury and damage.
  • The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), as amended, and its Codes of Practice, contain rules concerning police powers of stop, search, entry, seizure of property, arrest, detention, and treatment of suspects.
  • Under s 1 PACE, as amended, a police constable may search any person or vehicle, including anything in or on the vehicle, for stolen or prohibited articles in public places.
  • Under s 8(1) PACE a magistrate may issue a warrant authorizing a police constable to enter and search premises.
  • Under s 19(2) and (3) PACE, police officers should seize goods only if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the goods have been obtained illegally; or are evidence in relation to an offence.
  • Police officers can arrest a person with or without a warrant under s 24 PACE, as amended.
  • Under s 24A PACE, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence and anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
  • At the police station, the arrested person has the right to: inform someone of their arrest, seek legal advice, and examine and read the Codes of Practice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Law Cases

Case Name / Relevancy / Facts / Held Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] Actus Reus: Medical Treatment Doctors were granted approval to remove the feeding tube of Bland who had been left in a vegetative state after an injury suffered by the Hillsborough disaster. It was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment as the doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients. R v Kimsey (1996) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D admitted engaging in a chase but not to trying to overtake just before the accident which left Osbourne dead. The dangerous driving did not have to be considered a ‘substantial’ cause of death but rather a cause of death which was sufficient to convict D. R v Dalloway (1847) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D was not holding on to the reins on a horse and cart which resulted in a child running out into the road was killed by one of the wheels. D was charged for driving in a negligent fashion and causing the death of the c
Read more

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid
Read more

According to the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018, all recent refugees arriving in the UK seeking asylum are to be kept detained until their claims are processed and it can be ascertained that they do not pose a terrorist threat. The local detention centres are run by a private firm, ‘Home Away from Home.’ Estela, a recently arrived asylum seeker has been detained in one of the privately run facilities, and has had her room searched regularly by ‘Home Away from Home’ private security guards in case she has any contraband in her possession. As she has to wait outside while they are searching her room, Estela fears that the security guards may go through her private correspondence whilst searching. Advise Estela on any claims she may make on the grounds of the HRA 1998, including reference to any procedural requirements. [Note: This is a hypothetical scenario and the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018 is not real legislation.]

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. Estela could argue that these actions were illegal under Article 5 and 8. Estela has sufficient interest in the matter so therefore fulfills this requirement. This Act breaches Convention rights, as the public authorities must act fairly and without bias. Estela could therefore seek judicial review under procedural impropriety, and that the Act is therefore unlawful.
Read more