User Tools

Site Tools


voluntary_interviews

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
voluntary_interviews [2018/01/15 10:55]
frescom
voluntary_interviews [2018/01/15 10:56] (current)
frescom
Line 6: Line 6:
 Its worth noting that this case was brought by Dilhor Miah who is a member of PoliceStationReps.com. Our job matters and we can make a big difference. Its worth noting that this case was brought by Dilhor Miah who is a member of PoliceStationReps.com. Our job matters and we can make a big difference.
  
-==== RICHARDSON ​====+=== RICHARDSON ===
 In Richardson v West Midlands Police 2011 a teacher was alleged to have assaulted a pupil and voluntarily attended two police stations. On his arrival at the second police station he was arrested by the investigating officer 'to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence. In Richardson v West Midlands Police 2011 a teacher was alleged to have assaulted a pupil and voluntarily attended two police stations. On his arrival at the second police station he was arrested by the investigating officer 'to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence.
  
Line 13: Line 13:
 It is not permissible to operate a blanket policy whereby everyone voluntarily attending a police station to be interviewed has to be arrested; instead, the decision whether or not to arrest must involve a consideration of the facts of the particular case; a conclusion that a suspect might leave before the conclusion of an interview must be based on evidence, taking into account the relevant circumstances,​ rather than on general propositions;​ where there is no such evidence, such a conclusion is not warranted and cannot be used to justify arrest; and if the arrest cannot be so justified, then in the absence of any other grounds justifying arrest it will be unlawful. It is not permissible to operate a blanket policy whereby everyone voluntarily attending a police station to be interviewed has to be arrested; instead, the decision whether or not to arrest must involve a consideration of the facts of the particular case; a conclusion that a suspect might leave before the conclusion of an interview must be based on evidence, taking into account the relevant circumstances,​ rather than on general propositions;​ where there is no such evidence, such a conclusion is not warranted and cannot be used to justify arrest; and if the arrest cannot be so justified, then in the absence of any other grounds justifying arrest it will be unlawful.
  
-ARREST FIRST & QUESTION LATER+=== ARREST FIRST & QUESTION LATER ===
 The High Court ruled that common practice of arresting voluntary attenders at police stations is unlawful unless there are clear reasons why the arrest is necessary. The Richardson case relates to a teacher who was arrested depite attending for a voluntary interview. The police have to establish that: The High Court ruled that common practice of arresting voluntary attenders at police stations is unlawful unless there are clear reasons why the arrest is necessary. The Richardson case relates to a teacher who was arrested depite attending for a voluntary interview. The police have to establish that:
 the arresting officer subjectively believes they have proper grounds for believing that arrest was necessary, and the arresting officer subjectively believes they have proper grounds for believing that arrest was necessary, and
Line 35: Line 35:
 1.3 The use of the power must be fully justified and officers exercising the power should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means. Arrest must never be used simply because it can be used. Absence of justification for exercising the powers of arrest may lead to challenges should the case proceed to court. 1.3 The use of the power must be fully justified and officers exercising the power should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means. Arrest must never be used simply because it can be used. Absence of justification for exercising the powers of arrest may lead to challenges should the case proceed to court.
  
- +=== LORD HANNIGFIELD ​===
-LORD HANNIGFIELD+
 In the case of Lord Hannigfield v Essex Police 2013 the judge says summary arrest was never going to have any impact on the prompt and effective investigation of Lord Hanningfield'​s council expenses. In his decision, Mr Justice Eady said he had considered whether the arrest was necessary 'to allow the prompt and effective investigation'​. In the case of Lord Hannigfield v Essex Police 2013 the judge says summary arrest was never going to have any impact on the prompt and effective investigation of Lord Hanningfield'​s council expenses. In his decision, Mr Justice Eady said he had considered whether the arrest was necessary 'to allow the prompt and effective investigation'​.
  
 'The prospect of Lord Hanningfield attempting to '​bully'​ any of the police officers visiting his home that morning does seem somewhat remote. It was further mooted that, unless he was arrested, Lord Hanningfield might seek to destroy or conceal evidence relating to his expenses. It seems that the officers were under the mistaken impression, for example, that he was still in possession of a council computer.'​ Mr Justice Eady said he felt the police officer concerned believed the arrest was necessary. But he said: 'I have come to the conclusion that the requirement of '​necessity'​ as laid down by Parliament has not, on any realistic interpretation of the word, been met.' 'The prospect of Lord Hanningfield attempting to '​bully'​ any of the police officers visiting his home that morning does seem somewhat remote. It was further mooted that, unless he was arrested, Lord Hanningfield might seek to destroy or conceal evidence relating to his expenses. It seems that the officers were under the mistaken impression, for example, that he was still in possession of a council computer.'​ Mr Justice Eady said he felt the police officer concerned believed the arrest was necessary. But he said: 'I have come to the conclusion that the requirement of '​necessity'​ as laid down by Parliament has not, on any realistic interpretation of the word, been met.'
  
-THE HAYES NECESSITY TEST+=== THE HAYES NECESSITY TEST ===
 Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police 2011 established a two stage test to determine the validity of an arrest. The meaning of PACE s24(4)-(5) was also consdidered. ​ Hayes v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police 2011 established a two stage test to determine the validity of an arrest. The meaning of PACE s24(4)-(5) was also consdidered. ​
  
Line 64: Line 63:
 In applying this test, the relevant facts for considering the reasonableness of the officer’s belief are the facts known to that officer at the time of making the arrest: facts which, had he been aware of them, would have justified the arrest are not relevant. In applying this test, the relevant facts for considering the reasonableness of the officer’s belief are the facts known to that officer at the time of making the arrest: facts which, had he been aware of them, would have justified the arrest are not relevant.
  
-UPDATED PACE GUIDANCE+=== UPDATED PACE GUIDANCE ​===
 The decisions in Richardson and Hayes prompted the Government to revise Code G and issue fresh guidance in order to ensure that the police comply with these guidelines. The following principles relating to the arrest of voluntary attendees emerge from that guidance: The decisions in Richardson and Hayes prompted the Government to revise Code G and issue fresh guidance in order to ensure that the police comply with these guidelines. The following principles relating to the arrest of voluntary attendees emerge from that guidance:
 An officer intending to interview a suspect must consider whether voluntary attendance is a practical alternative to arrest, and, if it is, arrest will not be necessary An officer intending to interview a suspect must consider whether voluntary attendance is a practical alternative to arrest, and, if it is, arrest will not be necessary
Line 72: Line 71:
  
  
-CONCLUSION+=== CONCLUSION ​===
 If you think about it nothing has changed. PACE always said it was unlawful to arrest someone who attended voluntarily. These cases merely clarify what we all had been arguing for years. The real question is what would amount to a sufficient, reasonable, necessity to arrest a volunteer? That is hard to say, but perhaps some new evidence turning up at the very last minute like DNA or fingerprints at the scene of a crime. Even then the defendant should really be asked to provide the evidential samples first rather than being arrested. It would have to be some new evidence that was pretty compelling. ​ If you think about it nothing has changed. PACE always said it was unlawful to arrest someone who attended voluntarily. These cases merely clarify what we all had been arguing for years. The real question is what would amount to a sufficient, reasonable, necessity to arrest a volunteer? That is hard to say, but perhaps some new evidence turning up at the very last minute like DNA or fingerprints at the scene of a crime. Even then the defendant should really be asked to provide the evidential samples first rather than being arrested. It would have to be some new evidence that was pretty compelling. ​
  
voluntary_interviews.txt · Last modified: 2018/01/15 10:56 by frescom