However s 28 (3) states ‘no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the grounds for arrest at the time, or as soon as is practicable, after the arrest’
This rule was established by the House of Lords Christie v Leachinsky (1947) AC 573 and the traditional view is that the arresting officer should give the suspect enough information to decide if the arrest is lawful or not. DC Dukes placed the suspect under
ALICE JANNETTA
U8598421
arrest but when questioned by the suspect as to the resaon for the arrest, DC Dukes replied ‘You’ll find out soon enough’. The suspect was told of the reason at the police station but there is no reason to explain why it was not practicable at the time of arrest. DC Dukes therefore failed to comply with one of the fundamental principles of the rules regarding arrest and this could provide a defence for Clive regarding the struggle, which followed. PACE includes three safeguards for arrest, it must be based on reasonable suspicion, effected by no greater force than is necessary and the suspect must be informed of the grounds of the arrest at the time it was made. Failure to comply with these fundamental principles can result in civil liability for damages and can provide a defense for any person resisting arrest or assaulting or obstructing police in the execution of their duty. This is a reminder of the common law insistence that every act of detention must be legally justified.
S. 56 PACE concerns the right to have someone informed of your arrest and establishes the procedure and permitted reasons for a delay. A delay is only permitted if the detention is for an ‘arrestable offence’and if the officer ‘has reasonable grounds for believing that telling that named person of the arrest-
(b) Will lead to the altering of other persons having committed such an offence but not yet arrested for it’ This delay can continue for up to 36 hours in certain circumstances (s.56 Pace). With regards to these provisions the police have acted properly as it is the suspects brother who has been implicated and the suspect wishes to communicate his arrest to his mother. However s.56 (2)(b) states that a delay is permitted if ‘ an officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it’. The delay has been authorised by the custody officer, Sergeant Finch, whose rank does not give him this authority. In addition to this when a suspect is taken to a police station the police are obliged to tell the suspect of their rights (s.1 Code C). A suspect has the right to free legal advice (s.58 PACE) and the suspect should be asked to sign the custody record to indicate that they have been told of their rights (s.3.5 Code C). These conditions of arrest and detention do not appear to have been adhered to in the case of Clive’s detention, he has been offered legal advice
ALICE JANNETTA
U8598421
and declined but no record seems to have been made of these details and he has not been offered the right to inspect Code C.
Furthermore s.10 Code C indicates that ‘a person whom there are ground to suspect an offence, must be cautioned before any questions about an offence’ and it would appear that there has been no caution. Clive has also chosen to remain silent and this fact will result in the possibility that the court may draw adverse inferences from such a silence.
Clive has not been charged and the procedure of ongoing detention without charge is more onerous for the police than if he had been charged. . S.41(1) states that ‘a person cannot be shall not be kept in detention for more than 24 hours without being charged’ although this can be extended. It also states that the detention must be reviewed after 6 hours and then at 9-hour intervals. If Clive had been charged then the review could be conducted by the custody officer however s.40 (b) states that in the case of a person who has been arrested but not charged then the review must be conducted by ‘an officer of at least the rank of inspector who has not been directly involved in the case’ Clearly Sergeant Finch is of inferior rank and should not be conducting the review which in any case do not seem to have been conducted at all.
The question of lawful detention is again raised when considering if the police have the power to further detain Clive. At 10.45 pm on Thursday, Clive will have been detained for 24 hours and normally a suspect must be released after this time or released. However if the police wish to detain a suspect for a longer period this can be authorised by a superintendent and may extend the detention for a further 12 hours. The grounds for authorising the extended detention are the same as for authorising the detention in the first place: there must be reasonable grounds for believing that further detention will yield further evidence. If the police wish to detain Clive without charge for more than 36 hours, then they must take him to the magistrate’s court to obtain a warrant allowing for detention up to another 36 hours. It is possible to extend detention for a further 36 hours if the detainee is brought before the magistrates again. Therefore a suspect can be held in custody for up to 96 hours and during this time the detention must have been reviewed
ALICE JANNETTA
U8598421
three times and the suspect must be brought before the magistrates twice. After this time the suspect must be charged or released.
Therefore it would appear that the police have not acted lawfully in every aspect of Clive’s detention.
WORD COUNT 1253
