ACPO Code of Practice – guidelines or not???
Discussion
Members have been disagreeing on the significance of the document “ACPO Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment”.
Personally, I have never come across anything that shows this document, or the processes described within, to have any basis in law (I’m not say it doesn’t, I just haven’t yet seen proof).
Also, I’m under the strong impression that the courts disregard examination of such procedures when put forward for scrutiny.
Here’s an extract from said document:
The former highlight states the operative word; the latter shows that proof of procedure is demonstrated to Joe Public but not the courts.
I would appreciate it if you chaps can enlighten me and tell me you think – and why. Are these guidelines or actually mandatory procedures?
Personally, I have never come across anything that shows this document, or the processes described within, to have any basis in law (I’m not say it doesn’t, I just haven’t yet seen proof).
Also, I’m under the strong impression that the courts disregard examination of such procedures when put forward for scrutiny.
Here’s an extract from said document:
ACPO Code of Practice said:My bold
Introduction
……….
This Code of Practice is for the guidance of the enforcer and for the information of those accused of alleged offences who wish to satisfy themselves the correct procedures have been followed when technology was used to detect the alleged offence.
The former highlight states the operative word; the latter shows that proof of procedure is demonstrated to Joe Public but not the courts.
I would appreciate it if you chaps can enlighten me and tell me you think – and why. Are these guidelines or actually mandatory procedures?
smeggy said:
Personally, I have never come across anything that shows this document, or the processes described within, to have any basis in law (I’m not say it doesn’t, I just haven’t yet seen proof)
I think this is the key...Whilst Brunstrom's footnote on the document states that the contents of the Code must be 'rigorously applied' (or is it 'scrupulously' ?), I'm not aware that this has any legal clout whatsoever.
Like you smeggy, I'm not saying it doesn't, just yet to see the proof for myself..
>> Edited by SS2. on Monday 23 January 15:05
puggit said:
Just ask Justinp1 - he'll let you know if they are 'guidelines' or not
Ahem, my point of view of this is whether I believe them legally applicable, morally applicable, or what happened in my court cases...
It was obvious from my court cases that both the magistrates and crown court judge believed them to be 'guidelines'. However... I do believe that if a solicitor focused on the area of the applicability of the Code and the enforcement of it, I think they would have some more success. In my case the Code of Practice/Guidelines were discounted solely due to the fact that the police officer gave testimony that the LTI2020 would give an error reading if the 'guidelines' were not followed...
For clarity, thats not true! But, it meant that it halted further discussion to the validity of the document...
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 23 January 16:20
Hi Smeggy,
I think we talked about these procedures and a while ago when we were discussing my case.
However, for the benefit of the thread, I do believe that the introduction goes onto state that the Code must be 'strictly adhered to'. It would suggest that this is pretty black and white.
In the area that you have highlighted, it mentions the code is for the guidance for the enforcer. IMO, the Code being there for the purpose of guiding the operator, does not mean that they can ignore the 'guidance'. I do not think that the meaning of the word 'guidance' qualifies that it can be read as 'optional'.
The second section involved is with regard to the use of the code for those accused to 'satisfy themselves that the correct procedures have been followed'. This indicates that the procedures inside the code, *are* the correct procedures, and thus if these procedures are not followed or completed in a different way, then that would be incorrect.
Secondly we should consider the motive behind making the Code of Practice. The cynical 'spin' factor aside, I really do believe that they are formed to ensure that operators *do* follow the code, and for clarity this document is offered in the public domain for the accused to verify that they had been followed to verify the evidence against them. It is also noted in the document that it offers guidance on how to obtain a notorised copy for use in court. Thus, I also believe that the intention of the Code is to by hook or by crook uphold the standards expected of the operators.
If the Code is really 'guidelines' and not legally applicable, why give the public the opportunity to scruitinise the evidence against them, and why show instruction of how to produce the document in court?
I think we talked about these procedures and a while ago when we were discussing my case.
However, for the benefit of the thread, I do believe that the introduction goes onto state that the Code must be 'strictly adhered to'. It would suggest that this is pretty black and white.
In the area that you have highlighted, it mentions the code is for the guidance for the enforcer. IMO, the Code being there for the purpose of guiding the operator, does not mean that they can ignore the 'guidance'. I do not think that the meaning of the word 'guidance' qualifies that it can be read as 'optional'.
The second section involved is with regard to the use of the code for those accused to 'satisfy themselves that the correct procedures have been followed'. This indicates that the procedures inside the code, *are* the correct procedures, and thus if these procedures are not followed or completed in a different way, then that would be incorrect.
Secondly we should consider the motive behind making the Code of Practice. The cynical 'spin' factor aside, I really do believe that they are formed to ensure that operators *do* follow the code, and for clarity this document is offered in the public domain for the accused to verify that they had been followed to verify the evidence against them. It is also noted in the document that it offers guidance on how to obtain a notorised copy for use in court. Thus, I also believe that the intention of the Code is to by hook or by crook uphold the standards expected of the operators.
If the Code is really 'guidelines' and not legally applicable, why give the public the opportunity to scruitinise the evidence against them, and why show instruction of how to produce the document in court?
rewc said:
In the case of Health & Safety legislation there are loads of Codes of Practice. They are not mandatory BUT if there were an incident or accident and it could be shown that you did not follow them this could lead to prosecution.
Agreed. The operator is not breaking the law by not adhering to the Code, but the subsequent evidence gathered from a situation where the Code was not followed *should* be inadmissable if the foreword by Brunstrom should be taken as gospel.
Funny, isn't it? When it comes to "hate crime", senior police officers appear to have followed slavishly the "advice" (guideline) issued by ACPO - see recent discussion in the media. But when it comes to that most dangerous of criminals - the speeding motorist - a "Code of Practice" becomes something they cheerfully lob out of the window (at 80mph through crowded London streets when late for a meeting) - Streaky
Why not pay to get a witness statement from Brunstrom himself describing the relevence of the document and the meaning of his words whilst writing the foreward? Either that or request him attend as a defence witness. That's what I would do.
As said before, the Acpo codes are rigorously enforced with regard to positional asphyxiation. If an officer were to sit orn place alot of weight on a suspect who is face down whilst detaining him and that person dies of positional asphyxiation, he would be charged with murder/manslaughter and those very codes would be cited against him. There isn't primary legislation dealing with positional asphyxiation.
Scott
As said before, the Acpo codes are rigorously enforced with regard to positional asphyxiation. If an officer were to sit orn place alot of weight on a suspect who is face down whilst detaining him and that person dies of positional asphyxiation, he would be charged with murder/manslaughter and those very codes would be cited against him. There isn't primary legislation dealing with positional asphyxiation.
Scott
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff