There are several sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) that govern the search of premises and arrest powers; key areas of this case.
Section 17 holds that police can enter and search premises to execute a warrant of arrest; to make an arrest without a warrant; to capture a person unlawfully at large; or to protect people from serious injury or prevent serious damage to property.
Under section 18, after an arrest for an indictable offence has been made, the police can search premises occupied or controlled by the suspect if they reasonably suspect that there is evidence of the immediate offence or other offences on the premises.
Section 19 explains that once police are lawfully on the premises they may seize and retain any item that is evidence of a crime.
Section 32 states that after an arrest for an indictable offence, an officer can lawfully enter and search premises where the person was when arrested or immediately before they were arrested, if the constable reasonably suspects that there is evidence relating to the offence in question on the premises.
Under section 24, as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA), a police officer can arrest a person for committing any offence if this is necessary. Police officers must reasonably suspect that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence and have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest that person.
It will be necessary if; the person will not give their name and address, or the police officer reasonably suspects that the name or address given is false; the arrest will prevent the person from causing physical injury to him or herself or another person; suffering physical injury; causing loss or damage to property; committing an offence against public decency; or obstructing the highway; to protect a child or other vulnerable person; to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question; to prevent the person disappearing.
Section ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
It will be necessary if; the person will not give their name and address, or the police officer reasonably suspects that the name or address given is false; the arrest will prevent the person from causing physical injury to him or herself or another person; suffering physical injury; causing loss or damage to property; committing an offence against public decency; or obstructing the highway; to protect a child or other vulnerable person; to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question; to prevent the person disappearing.
Section 28 defines that at the time of, or as soon as practical after the arrest, the person arrested must be informed that they are under arrest, and given the grounds for that arrest, even if it is perfectly obvious that they are being arrested and why.
There are also Codes A and B that may apply to this case.
Under Code of Practice A, a police officer must have reasonable grounds for suspecting, regarding the powers of stop and search, searching of premises, arrest and detention.
Paragraph 2.2 of Code A states that reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors alone without reliable supporting intelligence or information or some specific behaviour by the person concerned. For example, a person's race, age, appearance, or the fact that the person in known to have a previous conviction, cannot be used alone or in combination with each other as the reasons for searching that person. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
Under Code of Practice B, searches of premises should be made at a reasonable time and only reasonable force should be used. The police should show due consideration and courtesy towards the property and privacy of the occupier.
When looking at the brief of the case of Karen and Micky, the police were lawful in knocking on the nearest door to the stolen car, in order to carry out basic enquiries. The police were also lawful in entering the property of Karen and Micky as they had permission through Katy, aged 5. However, they failed to show courtesy towards the privacy of the occupier by not asking the 5 year-old, Katy, to see an adult, and, consequently, may be in breach of Code B.
The brief of the case gives suspicion as to the grounds on which the search of the premises was conducted. There is a direct breach of Code A, as it appears that the search was carried out because of Karen's relation to Micky, a man with previous convictions for theft. This reason for suspecting is specified in paragraph 2.2 of Code A as not acceptable.
When looking at which sections of PACE apply to this case, section 17 is not relevant, as the search was not carried out for any of the reasons contained within section 17. Sections 18 and 32 are only applicable after an arrest has been made and so are also not related to the case.
Under section 19, however, the police seized a computer, believing it to be evidence of a crime. Although the action of seizing the computer is lawful, within the brief, it is suggested that the computer is taken as evidence of a crime that is not known to the police. This supports the officers' breach of Code A, by taking the computer because of Micky's previous convictions for theft, accompanied by a belief that Micky could not afford it.
When looking at the brief there is no clarity as to the grounds on which Karen was arrested. It was not necessary to arrest her as the police officers know where she lives, and none of the other grounds for arrest given in section 24 of PACE, as amended by SOCPA, are relevant in this case, regardless of the fact of the seized computer. The officers are again in breach of Code A as a result of this, and the suspicion that Karen was arrested because of Micky's previous convictions.
The detention of Karen within the living room of her property would be lawful if her arrest was in fact lawful; since the police had a right to stay on the premises as they were waiting for Micky's return.
Whilst considering the grounds for Micky's arrest it becomes apparent that unnecessary force, in the nature of batons, was used in order to detain him. As he was verbally abusive towards the officers, they had the right to arrest him, under section 24 of PACE, as amended by SOCPA, believing it was necessary in order to prevent him causing others physical injury.
However, because of the position Micky was in, finding his family being detained, verbal abuse can be understood and may not form reasonable grounds for his arrest.
It is not made clear within the brief whether Karen or Micky was informed, under section 28 of PACE, that they were under arrest or of the grounds for their arrest, and so the police may be in breach of this section on both accounts.
Looking at the whole of this case, it is clear that the police were unlawful. The only part of the case that was conducted in an appropriate manner was that of knocking on the nearest door to the stolen car, in order to carry out enquiries. Throughout the rest of the case the police demonstrate significant bias towards Micky and his family because of his previous convictions of theft.
Rebecca Turner Assignment 1.1 21/05/2009
