More Subjects
Front Cover
Name: Edwige Wakuna
Student ID number:
Module name:
Module code:
Assignment title/question: PACE Act 1984
Submission deadline:
Word count:
“This assessment consists of my own work, save that any part which is not my own work has been cited as such and attributed to the author. I am aware that University regulations relating to plagiarism apply. No component of this work has been submitted in support of any application for another qualification in this University or elsewhere.”
Signed:
Checklist (In the order it should appear in your submission).
152400381000Completed front cover
1524003048000Table of cases:
A list of all the cases you have referred to in your assignment. You must include the full case citation. Example: Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1204
152400-1079500Table of statutes:
A list of all the legislation you have referred to. Example: Criminal Evidence Act 1898
152400381000Assignment:
The main body of the assignment should be at least 1.5 line spaced to allow for marking (double line spaced maximum). Work must be in one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Arial, Cambria or Calibri. Work must be font size 11 or 12.
1524001206500Bibliography
1524004318000 Turnitin submission
15240018859500
Electronic Copy Saved
PACE Act 1984
Overview
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is based on the recommendations provided by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure . Primarily, the PACE Act gives the power to police to stop and search, arrest, search the premises, question, identify the suspects, and record the interview. In most of the countries, a warrant issued by the court is required to search or seize. But if there is a risk of losing a suspect or a loss, the need for a warrant can be ignored. There is a total of twenty-one acts that grant the police the power to stop and search. Some acts like the PACE Act, the Firearm Act, and the misuse of Drugs Act are commonly used while some are rarely employed. The stop and search are practiced based on PACE act is frequently used but most of them are not followed by the arrests. The PACE Act made it compulsory for the police to audio record all the interviews of suspects, ensure suspects their right to legal representation, and placed a limit on detention before the charge. PACE Act was the outcome of the growing criticism from the judiciary and public on police misconduct. The criticism peeked to even a higher level when the famous case victims like Birmingham Six and Guildford surfaced. It is a well-known fact that the regulation of police control and power is intricate in practical life. The police must be provided with the indistinct guidelines and elasticity in attitude. A police officer must be ready to respond promptly when facing a potential offense, but then again, they should also follow the rules which guarantee that evidence has been obtained through the valid sources and legal procedure. The PACE Act has been passed for this specific reason to set the right balance authority and powers of the police and the civil liberties. This Act not only provides a guideline to protect the rights and freedom of the public but also states the situation and extent up to which the police can use authorities against the civil liberties for the proceeding of criminal justice. It is important to point out the situation where the use of police power becomes critical. The police brutality can be effectively controlled if the police are also aware of the limitations of police power. This will let the true purpose of the act to be fulfilled. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has also majorly described the satiation when the infringement of civil rights is acceptable in a similar fashion, but the acceptance and attitude towards the PACE act are remarkable.
Compliance with legislation
The PACE Act 1984 was primarily passed to keep a check on the police community because of the well-known fact that the miscarriage of justice originates from the police investigation. The main focus of the statute was to regulate and professionalize the police community. Through this, the act would correct the public insight of dishonest and ineffectual police force in the United Kingdom. It has been discussed on several occasions that when the trust of the public in the police is developed, the public starts to trust the entire justice system. On the other hand, while the public views the police as corrupt, they assume that the whole criminal justice system is corrupt and dishonest to them . So, this act was formulated for the awareness of the public that the legislation must not overlook the rights of pubic when dealing with the individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Different circumstances, flaws in the legislation, attitude of the authorities and mainly the conduct of police-community was the reason that the public developed a poor view of the English Justice system. However, the courts that could not prevent the police brutality were also the reason behind this perception. When in 1984 the PACE Act was introduced, it placed responsibility for courts to make sure that police follow the proper legislative procedure and victimization of the public can be ended. The judiciary was able to execute this through the power to reject a piece of evidence that could hinder the provision of justice to the public or was obtained through violation of the legislature. It can be reasoned that the common law had recognized and approved an alike judicial decision. But that provision was limited to confessions, and evidence obtained from the suspect after crime had occurred. The provision of PACE, on the other hand, is much diverse and applicable to almost every evidence.
The Criminal Process and PACE act
The practice of stop and search is thought to be critical in modern-day policing. Moreover, it also reflects the relations between police and community .
Impact on minority ethnic communities
The purpose of Act was to improve the relationship between people and the police. Instead, the concerns are raised about rights violations of minority ethnic communities. A police officer stops a person or group of people based on either evidence or enough suspicions. However, it has been observed that people belonging to different minority ethnic communities are targeted in search and stop practices. This leads to a miscarriage of justice and racial discrimination. Not only in UK but in many countries of the world, torture has become a routine at the police stations where the police use it for forceful extraction of confessions or some related information from suspects or accused who do not willingly disclose the information . The evidence suggests that the police are exercising power disproportionally to stop and search people in a discriminatory way. Most of the time, it is concluded to be inefficient and waste of resources and time. In March 2010, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published a report that stated that the disproportionality ratios among black-white and the Asian-White had been observed constantly for the past five years. The report showed that there were a total of 22 stops and searches per thousand people in 2007-2008. When critically analyzed, the highest rate recorded was for the black. According to a survey in England and Wales, a black man is 40 times more likely to be stopped and searched as compared to the white people . The second-highest rate recorded was for the Asian.
Most of the searches conducted lie under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). The Equality and Human Rights Commission is of the opinion that these stops and searches can be categorized as unlawful, discriminatory, and harmful for the relation between and among the diverse communities.
Ken Hinds is a conflict engagement specialist and member of the Haringey black advisory group. This group earned the Safer Communities award 2010 when competing for the most dedicated volunteers in the justice system. Ken shared his experience of being stopped and searched and assumed to be criminal. According to him, he has been stopped five or six times yearly, since he was a teenager. He describes that the police begin with a similar question and then start a search. He is usually told that he matches the description of the reported crime. He filed a case against the British Transport Police for false imprisonment and malevolent prosecution for an incident of May 2004. He saw that the police stopped and searched for a young black man. He thought that the young man might require a witness later, so he stayed there. However, he was arrested for threatening and offensive conduct. In 2005, the case went to trial and the charges were dismissed. He received compensation as well as the apology after High court trial .
In the analysis of January 2019 directed by the Guardian, the Metropolitan police increased the of stop and search executions past year. The practice rose to 19% among the black population of London and they are targeted significantly higher as compared to the white population. However, it is also concluded from the report that very few searches of Black people result in the detection of crime when compared to the searches of white people. Most of the stops of black people result in no offensive activity .
Impact on young people
The young people also face adverse situations when stopped or searched without a valid reason. Many cases have been observed where the police have stopped and search the young people and were unable to provide a reasonable ground for the action. In one of the recent cases, an unmarked police car mounted the roadway in Waltham Forest, which made a group of young black teenagers run away. The police detained them without any valid reason for suspicion . In another case, the police, with use of a taser, threatened an Asian teenager and then compelled to stay on the ground in Brixton. In response, the father went to the police station to file a complaint where he was told that no record of such incident occurs .
It is observed that those young people who face such situations are ore likely to be indulged in criminal activities as they grow up because the harsh realities impact negatively on their mindset.
Impact on socio-economic groups
According to many researchers, the perceptions and views of police are based on the understanding of the judicial and political systems, which hugely affects the people in the weaker socioeconomic background . The studies reveal that the powerless and underprivileged face the abuse of police power. These disparities are recorded by different researches and studies. They show that people with lesser power are known to be the victim of ill practice of the search and stop as compared to those who have a larger social circle and wealthier background. Poverty can be one of the reasons that drives violence in community, but this does not denote that every poor person commits crime or has offensive attitude. Moreover, it is observed that in communities where the poor face the negative impact of the police power tends to be drawn towards criminal activities more. It is because eth discriminatory execution of stop and search powers aggravate the situation.
People with low-income, who also belong to minority or ethnicity tend to be a much higher risk of becoming the victim of abuse of police power to stop and search. They are profiled, arrested, fined and harassed even without the reasonable ground of suspicions. The victimization of underprivileged occurs at intersectional repressions of gender, race and socioeconomic class. The reason is also that they are not able to afford the higher amounts of bails and fees of a defense attorney or contact with people in power.
Fairness and Effectiveness
The Legal use of police powers for stop and search has proven to be effective in Cleveland and Staffordshire where it has been observed that the practice of stop and search has reduced the crime rate. But it is important to realize that in these cases, the respect to human rights played a vital role in making the cities safer .
From several incidents, the question arises whether the statutory powers of the police are employed for the farewell of the public or otherwise. PACE is recognized as an effective tool to ensure that the police do not abuse the powers given to it by legislation and the civil liberties are protected as mentioned in the Constitution.
There are cases and court rulings which depict that the PACE act ensures the rights of every civilian without discrimination. In Osman V Southwark Crown Court, the defendant filed an appeal against his conviction for assaulting a police officer who was searching him. He stated that the officer did not provide him his details before he began the search. He complained of unlawful assault by the officer. The police officer must provide his details including name, number, and station, otherwise, the search is unlawful. The court held that the search, in this case, was unlawful as the officer did not follow the search laws properly . In another case, Mark Richardson V Chief Constable of West Midlands, a teacher who was voluntarily present at a police station, because he was accused of assaulting a student, was arrested and detained. The constable arrested him because he suspected that the teacher might leave while being interviewed. The court held that he was wrongly imprisoned as the police officer was not able to justify that his arrest had any solid grounds. The PACE 1984 s.24(4) act makes it compulsory to make an arrest only when if there is a valid reason . The accused teacher received the reward for damages.
In Linehan V Director of Public Prosecutions, the court ruled in favor of the Applicant who was charged for the assaulting constable on duty when he refused the entry of police in his property. The son of the applicant was arrested for burglary and the officers proposed to search the premises to find the stolen items of burglary. The court allowed the applicant to appeal because the officers did not explain the reason for entry .
In O’loughlin V Chief Constable of Essex, a reported was filed by a neighbor stating that Mrs. O’Loughlin damaged neighbors’ car. The police arrived and tried to enter the house forcibly. When the issue was raised in Court, the court decided that the officers were not allowed to enter a house forcibly without explaining the reason for entry first .
There are cases where it was ruled that the police implemented the act properly. In Keegan and others, V Chief Constable of Merseyside, police followed by the armed raid searched for a fugitive after they had received false information. The petitioner resident appealed for the recovery of damages. It was held by the court that the tort of malicious attainment of a search warrant requires that the absence of the probable cause for the demand of search warrant is established or any inappropriate motive is justified. In this case, even the information was false, but it does not prove that the warrant was obtained unreasonably. There may be some instances where it was established it was not reinforced here. In this case, the entry was legal because of the attainment and execution of the warrant .
However, some uncertainties are existing in the Act which requires the Court Judges to reconsider if the wording of the PACE Act meets the ‘quality of law requirement’. In S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, the courts decided that it is not legal to retain the DNA samples of the individual who have been accused but were acquitted not convicted later . The PACE Act permits the retaining of information for the prevention of crime in the future. The court decided that in this case the private rights of the civilians are violated through the retention of personal information as they were proven innocent.
The police with sufficient training and knowledge of the professional and lawful investigation have the potential of assaulting people. This results in the inability of police to guard public from the real offender, instead, police violate the rights of the public.
Public View
The HM Inspectorate of Constabulary directed to conduct a survey to learn about the perception and knowledge of people about the execution of stop and search. The survey produced responses of 19,078 civilians belonging to a wide range of ages, regions, genders, socio-economic groups, races and ethnicities of England and Wales. The survey showed that 92% of the people were aware of execution of stop and search by the police. About 55% of the people approved that they felt safer after the practice of stop and search. However, 13% people disagreed with it. A little less than half of these participants stated that their trust in police community has increased. The survey validates that people usually supports of power of stop and search for protection of community. Another strong perception between the people (almost 80% participants) was that police use the power of stop and search to convict criminals and reduce the crime rate.
Training
The training of the officer to perform their duties well according to the legislation is the most critical notion. When the cases of abuse of police power rise, it is observed that the training of officers is inadequate to understand the constitutional powers or use them. It is also seen that they were not able to understand the importance of reasonable grounds for the arrest or even suspicion. It is important to assess the effects of the execution of search and stop on the people belonging to different communities. All in all, the police officers must fully understand the use of stop and search powers to halt the crimes and reduce the delinquency rate. Not only the training is important, but the supervision also plays a significant role in the proper conduct of duties. Without supervision, the officers may not be able to understand the expected outcomes and common practice in a specific region. A proper supervisor of the officer when training is also important because there have been cases in which the supervisor pointed out the issues like the absence of details on the reasonable grounds required for the suspicions. These skills are usually learned by the officer during duty and by observing the superior officers. If a wrong practice is developed by the senior authorities, this affects the hierarchy of the police. For this reason, it is vital to standardize and professionalize conduct of stop and search. During the training, the officer learns the proper method, legislation and disciplinary action that be taken in case of violation of the PACE act. Through professional and proper training, the police officers can maintain balance between their authorities and the civil rights.
Use of technology
There exist abundant opportunities for the use of technological devices which will reduce the amount of work an officer will have to do as well as increase the effectiveness of the police powers. Police departments are considering the use of cameras which are mounted on the clothing of officer. The camera will gather the evidence which will be critical in case of violation of laws from the police or the public. According to the researches, the use of cameras improves the conduct of police as well as public, resulting in lesser cases of police victimization .
Conclusion
The purpose of strengthening the police community is to ensure the rights of people. But the investigative powers must not be abused that the rights of people they aim to protect are infringed. However, at times the police infringe certain rights for the protection of the majority. In this relation, the lower socioeconomic groups or powerless people are more likely to be targeted and face discriminatory behavior. The core aim of the PACE Act was to prevent the infringement of civil rights. Although, PACE act serves as an integral part for everyone linked to the criminal justice system. The Justice System of England has been labeled prejudiced for a long time. But this Act has improved the situation and raised the trust level of the public in the police community. The discrimination against different communities has been uncovered and the victims are relieved through court decisions. But there is a dire need to address these concerns related to discrimination to halt the miscarriage of criminal justice any further.
Statutes
Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 60(5)
The misuse of Drugs Act of 1971
The Firearm Act 1968
Police Act 1996 89(1)
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Cases
Osman V Southwark Crown Court [1999] EWHC Admin 622
S v United Kingdom [2009], Marper v United Kingdom [2009] 48 EHRR 50; [2009] Criminal Law Review 335
Richardson v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2011] EWHC 773 (QB)
O’loughlin V Chief Constable of Essex [1997] EWCA Civ 2891, [1998] 1 WLR 374
Keegan and Others V Chief Constable of Merseyside [2003] EWCA Civ 936, Times 17-Jul-2003, Gazette 11-Sep-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2187
Linehan V Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC 4005 (Admin)
Bibliography
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown B and Reed Benedict W, ‘Perceptions of the Police: Past Findings, Methodological Issues, Conceptual Issues and Policy Implications’ (2002) 25 Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 543
Delsol R and Shiner M, ‘Regulating Stop and Search: A Challenge for Police and Community Relations in England and Wales’ (2006) 14 Critical Criminology 241
editor MT home affairs, ‘Police Accused of Abusing Easier Stop and Search’ The Observer (14 April 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/14/stop-and-search-metropolitan-police-sajid-javid> accessed 30 January 2020
‘Keegan and Others v Chief Constable of Merseyside: CA 3 Jul 2003’ (swarb.co.uk, 6 April 2019) <https://swarb.co.uk/keegan-and-others-v-chief-constable-of-merseyside-ca-3-jul-2003/> accessed 30 January 2020
‘Linehan v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 8 Oct 1999’ (swarb.co.uk, 6 February 2019) <https://swarb.co.uk/linehan-v-director-of-public-prosecutions-admn-8-oct-1999/> accessed 30 January 2020
Murphy N, ‘The Role of the Solicitor at the Police Station’ <http://krw-law.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/The-Role-of-a-Solicitor-in-the-Police-Station-PACE-IPLS-8.3.17.pdf> accessed 28 January 2020
‘O’Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex: CA 12 Dec 1997’ (swarb.co.uk, 19 March 2019) <https://swarb.co.uk/oloughlin-v-chief-constable-of-essex-ca-12-dec-1997/> accessed 30 January 2020
‘Osman v Southwark Crown Court: Admn 1 Jul 1999’ (swarb.co.uk, 23 March 2019) <https://swarb.co.uk/osman-v-southwark-crown-court-admn-1-jul-1999/> accessed 30 January 2020
Packer H, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford University Press 1968)
Police VD and correspondent crime, ‘Met Police “disproportionately” Use Stop and Search Powers on Black People’ The Guardian (26 January 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/26/met-police-disproportionately-use-stop-and-search-powers-on-black-people> accessed 30 January 2020
‘Pretrial Detention and Torture: Why Pretrial Detainees Face the Greatest Risk’ (Open Society Foundations) <https://www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/4c3491a1-f7a1-48b2-9afd-3cd0a4f220f6/pretrial-detention-and-torture-06222011.pdf> accessed 30 January 2020
‘Stop and Search Powers: Are the Police Using Them Effectively and Fairly?’ (HMIC 2013) <https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/media/stop-and-search-powers-20130709.pdf> accessed 30 January 2020
‘Stop and Think: A Critical Review of the Use of Stop and Search Powers in England and Wales’ (Equality and Human Rights Commission) <https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/ehrc_stop_and_search_report.pdf> accessed 30 January 2020
Townsend M, ‘Black People “40 Times More Likely” to Be Stopped and Searched in UK’ The Observer (4 May 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/may/04/stop-and-search-new-row-racial-bias> accessed 28 January 2020
MARK RICHARDSON v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST MIDLANDS (2011) (Court of Appeal Civil division)
S and Marper v the United Kingdom (GC)
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024