Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
Bigends said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why not just with the original offence
Covid regs = no requirement to give your name and address, but if they want to FPN they need your details.
PACE = arrest to enable details to be confirmed.
(Arguably coercion at work, as what generally law-abiding citizen with a job and a reputation to maintain wants an arrest or worse on their record?)
But where does the right to silence sit?
This video on YouTube (posted by 'Jimmy OneTime': https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUcpYqZxQV-cdImAO... ) seems to be saying that under Rice vs Connolly 1966, one is not required to furnish details at any point and can rely on the Right to Silence??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NeCqOgjpKg
Or have I misunderstood things entirely?
EDIT: Rice vs Connolly links:
https://swarb.co.uk/rice-v-connolly-1966/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_v_Connolly
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 17th March 18:14
carinaman said:
ha, you posted as I was trawling/adding links 
Please can I ask if someone can explain it to me like they are explaining quantum physics to a 5-year old that isn't Stephen Hawking?
Breadvan72 said:
unident said:
Breadvan72 said:
It has happened - see the Neale case, where luckily the Divisional Court got it right but the police, CPS, and magistrates' court had got it badly wrong. In general the latest lockdown has seen a LOT of heavy handed policing based on zero legal foundation. Many spurious FPNs have been issued and many will have gone unchallenged, because people are intimidated or uninformed. The scenes at Clapham should concern anyone who supports the idea of democracy. Even if democracy is of no interest, how about logic. What is the logic of a bunch of coppers piling on top of people to stop them getting to close to others (whilst standing outdoors where the risks of catching Covid are tiny)? This abandonment of rational analysis and focus on compliance at all costs is troubling.
What’s happened? Do you see our legal processes and courts as a mere lottery? Just that you said it was “lucky” that a court got it right. I digress, the fact we have courts who can make these rulings suggests it hasn’t happened. We’re not in a fascist state, if we were then the courts would be stooges and never overturn anything or challenge the government / police position.
You keep merging law with medical expertise. If the law states that something is illegal then isn’t that all that you should be concerned with? You are not an expert in whether the virus can be transmitted or not outdoors. You may be correct, but that doesn’t alter what the legal requirements are for people currently.
You have banged on about people only doing the absolute minimum of what the law states and nothing else, you have even started a locked thread at the top of this sub-forum to promote this. However, now you’re suggesting that law breaking is OK, because “medical stuff”, which is no more than your personal opinion of it, unless you’ve just spent the past few weeks away becoming a qualified epidemiologist.
You don’t debate. You make statements, you expect them to be accepted in full. You don’t answer the challenges raised, you play the man, then walk away with a misplaced opinion that you hold the higher ground.
There isn’t a single insult in there. What I have said is factual and representative of both what you’ve written and what you’re relying on to make your wild claims.
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why not just with the original offence
I don't think the ruling means what you think it does.
If the police want to enforce the regs and cannot issue a FPN, they have to either arrest or drop it. AIUI that means they have to have a reason for arrest, but then that reason probably applied to everyone there, so surely they should arrest more than 4 people? Perhaps starting with the Duchess of Cambridge....
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
RSTurboPaul said:
ha, you posted as I was trawling/adding links
Please can I ask if someone can explain it to me like they are explaining quantum physics to a 5-year old that isn't Stephen Hawking?
It's actually easy to understand but hard (For me) to explain succinctly.Please can I ask if someone can explain it to me like they are explaining quantum physics to a 5-year old that isn't Stephen Hawking?
Everyone has a right to silence and using that right is not against the law (Unless in some very limited circumstances such as when driving or keeping a car).
That doesn't mean it is always consequence free. If this means having decided to deal with you for an offence, they cannot ascertain your name and address then it may lead to an arrest in order to prosecute you for THAT offence. What was way out there, as far as I can see, on this occasion they tried to argue that, not giving your name and address, amounted to obstruction. It has long been held that merely not helping is not obstructing police and there is no reason the obstruction offence, under the regulations, is any different other than applying to any "Official". N.B giving a false name or address can amount to obstruction.
If the Police, believe you are breaking certain Covid regulations they have a range of options they can of course do nothing, advise explain etc. This is nothing new. One oddity is they can direct you to go home, order an illegal gathering to disperse and remove anyone part of an illegal gathering.
Issuing an FPN for Covid is just like speeding, an option they may offer to avoid a prosecution and a conviction. They don't have to it depends on the circumstances. However in order to do that they need a name and address. If that cannot be ascertained then they deal with you in the same way as if they decided not to offer the FPN in the first place.
That is usually in cases like this the SJPN, which also requires the name and address. Which is where the arrest comes in. For all offences a constable can arrest if they reasonable suspect someone is guilty AND if any of a list of conditions apply as listed subsection 5 here in addition for COVID it also includes to maintain public health;
or to maintain public order.
The key ones for name and address though are:
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b)correspondingly as regards the person's address;
TLDR.
If you don't tell them your name and address you commit no offence. But, if they suspect you have committed some actual offence, they can arrest you, (For amongst other reasons) if they can't readily ascertain your real name and address, by any other means.
Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 17th March 19:08
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why not just with the original offence
I don't think the ruling means what you think it does.
If the police want to enforce the regs and cannot issue a FPN, they have to either arrest or drop it. AIUI that means they have to have a reason for arrest, but then that reason probably applied to everyone there, so surely they should arrest more than 4 people? Perhaps starting with the Duchess of Cambridge....
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
vonhosen said:
It looked like they wanted to issue a few FPNs, couldn't, so arrested (having first engaged, explained & encouraged to try & avoid resorting to that).
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
Surely if they wanted to issue FPN’d for COVID everyone there was breaking the same law. So why single out 4? If they were committing different offences why not arrest them for those? The law applies equally to all, surely it’s not right to pick some people over other’s because you don’t like them?The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
Bigends said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
blueg33 said:
Bigends said:
If youre suspected of commiting an offence and the Police are considering getting you to court for that offence - then yes.
How does this figure then?A person suspected of breaching the coronavirus regulations is not required by law to give the police their name and address, an appeal has ruled. Keith Neale, a 60-year-old homeless man, had his conviction for obstructing a police officer by failing to give his details quashed, by the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Why not just with the original offence
I don't think the ruling means what you think it does.
If the police want to enforce the regs and cannot issue a FPN, they have to either arrest or drop it. AIUI that means they have to have a reason for arrest, but then that reason probably applied to everyone there, so surely they should arrest more than 4 people? Perhaps starting with the Duchess of Cambridge....
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
Not everybody was.
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
It looked like they wanted to issue a few FPNs, couldn't, so arrested (having first engaged, explained & encouraged to try & avoid resorting to that).
The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
Surely if they wanted to issue FPN’d for COVID everyone there was breaking the same law. So why single out 4? If they were committing different offences why not arrest them for those? The law applies equally to all, surely it’s not right to pick some people over other’s because you don’t like them?The reason behind the arrests was because the names & addresses were refused & so they couldn't go that path.
That didn't apply to everyone present, only those that they wanted to issue FPNs to because of their individual particular offending.
That wasn't applicable to all those present & why would it be?
There had been hours of peaceful vigil, including the attendance of the Duchess of Cambridge & that only changed at a later hour when it become more than a peaceful vigil following the actions of those individuals that the Police tried to engage with, explain to & encourage to desist.
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. Greendubber said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. They don't have to arrest everybody, but it's likely they want those that they believe were a cause of it if they can.
It didn't appear there was a problem with the vigil, it's when it became something else.
Perhaps it was by design.
Perhaps there were those that wanted to make a political statement & make headlines, wanted publicity for a cause & the bigger the headlines the bigger the publicity for that cause. Perhaps a peaceful vigil (as it had appeared to have been for hours) didn't suit that cause so they were trying to force that alternate outcome for that purpose.
There's going to be an enquiry, but the Police have been hung drawn & quartered in (not even a trial by) the media already.
By the time any enquiry concludes then it won't matter if they are exonerated at that point.
Still we will have a more balanced/evidenced & nuanced view of it all then, rather than just conjecture.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 17th March 20:39
blueg33 said:
Greendubber said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. To establish the truth of the matter.
blueg33 said:
Greendubber said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. blueg33 said:
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them.
I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a fk up.
They arrested 4 who didn't leave, when it was explained it was time to leave, as it was now becoming an unlawful gathering, sill didn't leave when they tried to persuade them and then directed them to. Didn't leave when told they would get an FPN if they didn't, refused their details so they couldn't issue an FPN, still refused when they were told they would be arrested if they didn't and then they got arrested. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. How many people didn't need all those stages? How many left in the considerable time whilst all that was being repeated and people being dealt with time and again?
blueg33 said:
Greendubber said:
blueg33 said:
vonhosen said:
Because they were the ones on the bandstand (where speeches were being made from) which became the focal point that the crowd clambered towards & as a result of which it was no longer a vigil but an unlawful gathering?
Only 4 on the bandstand? I don’t buy it. If they were breaking Covid regs so was everyone else. It looks like they choose who they didn’t like and booked them. I don’t think the way the vigil was handled is defensible. It’s a f
k up. http://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-vigil-more...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff