Arrests after RTAs

[Dr Jekyll]

It's common when reading a report of a serious accident to hear that someone was arrested at the scene for dangerous driving or causing death while dangerous driving. In many cases no prosecution follows. Is this now just a standard procedure to assist with checking phone records ETC? What is the criteria for making an arrest?

[kestral]

Is it necessary.

[LosingGrip]

Dr Jekyll said:

It's common when reading a report of a serious accident to hear that someone was arrested at the scene for dangerous driving or causing death while dangerous driving. In many cases no prosecution follows. Is this now just a standard procedure to assist with checking phone records ETC? What is the criteria for making an arrest?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/903814/pace-code-g-2012.pdf

2.9 gives the necessity for arrests. Basically you need at least one of those to arrest someone.

Drink/drug drive has a preserved power so doesn’t need one of those. But anything else does (so you could arrest someone for littering if they refuse to give you their name).

[Dr Jekyll]

LosingGrip said:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

2.9 gives the necessity for arrests. Basically you need at least one of those to arrest someone.

Drink/drug drive has a preserved power so doesn’t need one of those. But anything else does (so you could arrest someone for littering if they refuse to give you their name).

Para 2.9 section e seems to be a catch all so it explains how,

[LosingGrip]

I have to say the last few fatals/serious injuries that I’ve been involved with have been voluntary interviews rather than arrests.

[Greendubber]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Nope, PACE Code G applies to all. Plus you don't always want/need the custody clock ticking away in the background.

[wiliferus]

Pace gives the power if you want to arrest. But you don’t have to. Hence the regional variations.
Pace doesn’t say you have to arrest in xyz circumstances, but it says you can. Hence discretion, necessity, and proportionality are all things that come into play.

[LosingGrip]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No one can tell you to arrest someone. It’s your power to use or not to use. Even at a domestic you don’t have to arrest.

[wiliferus]

LosingGrip said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No one can tell you to arrest someone. It’s your power to use or not to use. Even at a domestic you don’t have to arrest.

Exactly. You can’t have a policy that says “you will arrest”. It’s unethical, it would undermine the office of Constable and it’s arguably unlawful.

[Greendubber]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which force has this "informal policy" because it won't get anyone past the circumstances unless Code G is satisfied regardless if which force it is.

There is very much a common approach, RTCs happen all the time and people are very rarely arrested.

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A couple of small but important points, both of which are related to the nonsentical change of name: 1/ Accident does not suggest that there was no one to blame, and 2/ There is not always someone to blame.

The legal definition of accident is an untoward occurrence having an adverse physical effect.

[Bigends]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

...but theyre still Accidents - not collisions - under the road traffic act arent they?

[Greendubber]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How about you just tell us all?

[48k]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Out of interest are you actually a serving police offer?

[Pothole]

Dr Jekyll said:

It's common when reading a report of a serious accident to hear that someone was arrested at the scene for dangerous driving or causing death while dangerous driving. In many cases no prosecution follows. Is this now just a standard procedure to assist with checking phone records ETC? What is the criteria for making an arrest?

They're arrested on suspicion of the offence.

[wiliferus]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You can’t do a Special Warning during a voluntary interview.
First question… “we’re you the driver” answer “no”
You now can’t special warn to get them to account for their presence at the scene, or indeed anything they may have had on their person which links them to being the driver.

[kestral]

Pothole said:

They're arrested on suspicion of the offence.

If the police do that they can be sued for false imprisonment.

It has to be necessary to arrest a member of the public.

Even if there is suspicion of murder it has to be necessary to arrest.

Suspicion of an offence is not sufficient for an arrest.

Necessity is the criteria not suspicion.

Edited by kestral on Tuesday 17th August 15:28

[wiliferus]

kestral said:

Pothole said:

They're arrested on suspicion of the offence.

If the police do that they can be sued for false imprisonment.

It has to be necessary to arrest a member of the public.

Even if there is suspicion of murder it has to be necessary to arrest.

Suspicion of an offence is not sufficient for an arrest.

Necessity is the criteria not suspicion.

Edited by kestral on Tuesday 17th August 15:28

You’re right and wrong. And your understanding is very simplistic.
I suggest you have a browse of S.24 Pace.

[Greendubber]

wiliferus said:

kestral said:

Pothole said:

They're arrested on suspicion of the offence.

If the police do that they can be sued for false imprisonment.

It has to be necessary to arrest a member of the public.

Even if there is suspicion of murder it has to be necessary to arrest.

Suspicion of an offence is not sufficient for an arrest.

Necessity is the criteria not suspicion.

Edited by kestral on Tuesday 17th August 15:28

You’re right and wrong. And your understanding is very simplistic.
I suggest you have a browse of S.24 Pace.

Indeed....

[Dibble]

kestral said:

Pothole said:

They're arrested on suspicion of the offence.

If the police do that they can be sued for false imprisonment.

It has to be necessary to arrest a member of the public.

Even if there is suspicion of murder it has to be necessary to arrest.

Suspicion of an offence is not sufficient for an arrest.

Necessity is the criteria not suspicion.

Edited by kestral on Tuesday 17th August 15:28

Remind us again of your skills/qualifications/experience?

Oh, that’s right. You’ve been asked this question numerous times, but never once given even the remotest indication.