Prompt & Effective Investiagtion of the Offence
Discussion
Is this a blanket, cover all, get out of jail card used by the police?
A friend of mine was invited to a police station for an interview. He attended as volunteer and has questions put to him in an interview room. He insisted on having a solicitor present before answering any of the questions. The police refuse to provide a solicitor and instead arrest and locked him up for 9 hours.
The reason of arrest was given as ''To allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question''. The custody record went on to say '' To obtain evidence by way of questioning''
How can the arrest of a person who has attended a station voluntarily to answer questions be considered prompt and effective investigation when the interview after arrest took place at least 7 hours later than it would have if a solicitor was simply provided as requested by the volunteer?
My friend was bailed and has just returned from answering bail this evening to be told NFA. It was a malicious allegation from a disgruntled associate. He is now seriously thinking of suing the police after reading up on police guidelines and previous judgements on cases like this.
Is this advisable?
A friend of mine was invited to a police station for an interview. He attended as volunteer and has questions put to him in an interview room. He insisted on having a solicitor present before answering any of the questions. The police refuse to provide a solicitor and instead arrest and locked him up for 9 hours.
The reason of arrest was given as ''To allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question''. The custody record went on to say '' To obtain evidence by way of questioning''
How can the arrest of a person who has attended a station voluntarily to answer questions be considered prompt and effective investigation when the interview after arrest took place at least 7 hours later than it would have if a solicitor was simply provided as requested by the volunteer?
My friend was bailed and has just returned from answering bail this evening to be told NFA. It was a malicious allegation from a disgruntled associate. He is now seriously thinking of suing the police after reading up on police guidelines and previous judgements on cases like this.
Is this advisable?
Eclassy said:
Is this a blanket, cover all, get out of jail card used by the police?
Yes.There was a proposal a few years back to make all offences arrestable. When this caused protests it was amended to make previously non arrestable offences only arrestable under certain conditions. Which sounded much better until it turned out that one of the conditions was 'necessary to allow prompt & effective investigation', IE a catch all.
It's not a blanket thing used. It's covered under PACE Code G, the necessity for an arrest. Just because someone wants a solicitor isn't grounds for arrest. However, if you invite someone in for a voluntary interview and they then say, "Right, I'm off", it has been held (and I can't remember the case sorry) that an arrest could then be lawful.
Good practice would normally be to arrange someone to attend as a voluntary attendance and at the time of making the arrangement, advise them they're entitled to legal representation so either arrange their own solicitor to attend with them, or get the duty when they're at the police station (which may cause a delay).
Similarly, just because someone is arrested then released NFA doesn't in itself make the original arrest unlawful. If the circs are exactly as you've described, I'm surprised the detention was authorised by the custody officer, who's independent of the investigation and there to ensure the detainee's welfare. 9 hours in custody is also the time of the first inspector's review of detention.
Your friend would be better advised speaking to a solicitor to see if he has grounds for a formal complaint. He can of course seek redress through civil action if he wants to go down that route. As ever, the devil is in the detail, so I can't really comment on specifics. There may be bits of information your friend (or you) has misunderstood, which may throw a whole different light on the situation. He'd be best seeking proper legal advice, rather than Internet "experts".
Good practice would normally be to arrange someone to attend as a voluntary attendance and at the time of making the arrangement, advise them they're entitled to legal representation so either arrange their own solicitor to attend with them, or get the duty when they're at the police station (which may cause a delay).
Similarly, just because someone is arrested then released NFA doesn't in itself make the original arrest unlawful. If the circs are exactly as you've described, I'm surprised the detention was authorised by the custody officer, who's independent of the investigation and there to ensure the detainee's welfare. 9 hours in custody is also the time of the first inspector's review of detention.
Your friend would be better advised speaking to a solicitor to see if he has grounds for a formal complaint. He can of course seek redress through civil action if he wants to go down that route. As ever, the devil is in the detail, so I can't really comment on specifics. There may be bits of information your friend (or you) has misunderstood, which may throw a whole different light on the situation. He'd be best seeking proper legal advice, rather than Internet "experts".
Dibble said:
Good practice would normally be to arrange someone to attend as a voluntary attendance and at the time of making the arrangement, advise them they're entitled to legal representation so either arrange their own solicitor to attend with them, or get the duty when they're at the police station (which may cause a delay).
This 100%Which is exactly what he did. On the day the interview was first scheduled, he took time off work, arranged with a solicitor and travelled to the town were the investigating officers were based. He met up with his solicitor in a cafe and as they had breakfast, he got a call from the investigating officer 30 minutes before the time of the appointment saying it had been cancelled and they couldn't see him on the day.
This left my friend out of pocket as he had paid a consultation fee to the solicitor. The solicitor was also pretty annoyed as half his day had been wasted. My friend was later informed by the solicitor that as his case against him was spurious, he only needed a solicitor present as a witness and not for any advise so a duty solicitor would suffice. He was advised to attend the next scheduled interview and ask for a solicitor which is what he did but ended up in the cell.
Why would he pay a consultation fee when he could have had him / her at the station and have the state pay the fee and still had the consultation post-disclosure?
Sometimes there's operational necessity to change appointments etc.
Has your friend made a complaint to the police already? It reads so since he knew what was written on the custody record.
Sometimes there's operational necessity to change appointments etc.
Has your friend made a complaint to the police already? It reads so since he knew what was written on the custody record.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 14th March 21:18
Eclassy said:
Dibble said:
Good practice would normally be to arrange someone to attend as a voluntary attendance and at the time of making the arrangement, advise them they're entitled to legal representation so either arrange their own solicitor to attend with them, or get the duty when they're at the police station (which may cause a delay).
This 100%Which is exactly what he did. On the day the interview was first scheduled, he took time off work, arranged with a solicitor and travelled to the town were the investigating officers were based. He met up with his solicitor in a cafe and as they had breakfast, he got a call from the investigating officer 30 minutes before the time of the appointment saying it had been cancelled and they couldn't see him on the day.
This left my friend out of pocket as he had paid a consultation fee to the solicitor. The solicitor was also pretty annoyed as half his day had been wasted. My friend was later informed by the solicitor that as his case against him was spurious, he only needed a solicitor present as a witness and not for any advise so a duty solicitor would suffice. He was advised to attend the next scheduled interview and ask for a solicitor which is what he did but ended up in the cell.
"Even/only" a duty solicitor would be there to represent the client. For the paid solicitor to give advice, there must have been some pre interview disclosure to him/her. It almost sounds to me like the paid solicitor CBA and didn't want to represent your friend.
Dibble said:
Eclassy said:
Dibble said:
Good practice would normally be to arrange someone to attend as a voluntary attendance and at the time of making the arrangement, advise them they're entitled to legal representation so either arrange their own solicitor to attend with them, or get the duty when they're at the police station (which may cause a delay).
This 100%Which is exactly what he did. On the day the interview was first scheduled, he took time off work, arranged with a solicitor and travelled to the town were the investigating officers were based. He met up with his solicitor in a cafe and as they had breakfast, he got a call from the investigating officer 30 minutes before the time of the appointment saying it had been cancelled and they couldn't see him on the day.
This left my friend out of pocket as he had paid a consultation fee to the solicitor. The solicitor was also pretty annoyed as half his day had been wasted. My friend was later informed by the solicitor that as his case against him was spurious, he only needed a solicitor present as a witness and not for any advise so a duty solicitor would suffice. He was advised to attend the next scheduled interview and ask for a solicitor which is what he did but ended up in the cell.
"Even/only" a duty solicitor would be there to represent the client. For the paid solicitor to give advice, there must have been some pre interview disclosure to him/her. It almost sounds to me like the paid solicitor CBA and didn't want to represent your friend.
MGZTV8 said:
What Dibble says is 100%.
However instead of second guessing what really has happened why not get your "friend" to post up as there may be more to the story than the "friend" is letting on. Possibly not but its better coming from the horses mouth than a third party.
When I said witness, I meant that there was nothing the solicitor had to do but just be present. There was no need to twist stories or say 'no comment' so the requirement of solicitor was simply for reassurance.However instead of second guessing what really has happened why not get your "friend" to post up as there may be more to the story than the "friend" is letting on. Possibly not but its better coming from the horses mouth than a third party.
This is the complete truth no embellishments. Very straightforward.
Friend arrives at police station
DC comes out 5 minutes later and invites him into an interview room
DC offers him a seat
DC puts on recorder
A second man enters interview room
DC: I just need to get your side of the story
Friend: That's fine but I will like a solicitor present please
DC: I am just trying to help you as I found the allegation very odd so just want your side of the story
Friend: That's fine but I would rather have a solicitor present as I have zero trust in the police
DC:Okay then you can go and call your solicitor in (pointing in the direction of the reception)
Friend: I didn't come with one as you guys wasted my solicitor's time the last time you cancelled my appointment with 30 minutes notice
DC: That's it then, I am placing you under arrest:
DC goes on to shout the caution to my friend. My friend tells him to stop shouting. DC ignores and continues shouting the caution. At the end he asks my friend ''Do you understand?''
My friend replies: Go F
k yourself. He is then told to stand up and he is led away.La Liga said:
s above.
Was a house search undertaken?
No complaint yet. He is seriously considering suing so he doesn't want to give too much away. he plans to complain but in very few words as he is 99% certain to be fobbed off. He requested his custody record on release.Was a house search undertaken?
No search undertaken although a request for a search is on the custody record.
Edited by Eclassy on Saturday 15th March 09:21
If the original solicitor said your friend didn't need a solicitor there to "do" anything, then why would he need a solicitor there at all? It's bad advice, IMHO. There may well have been further evidence/disclosure between the first and second appointments, so at the very least, the original solicitor should (again, IMHO) have advised your friend to at the very least get phone advice.
There's always the possibility of further evidence/disclosure coming out DURING the actual interview, so it would have been better to have ongoing legal advice, je a solicitor present during the interview.
There's always the possibility of further evidence/disclosure coming out DURING the actual interview, so it would have been better to have ongoing legal advice, je a solicitor present during the interview.
Eclassy said:
No complaint yet. He is seriously considering suing so he doesn't want to give too much away
It won't make a difference to any civil proceedings. Eclassy said:
he plans to complain but in very few words as he is 99% certain to be fobbed off.
If he were and there were a case for unlawful arrest / detention in the civil courts, this wouldn't reflect well on the police. Eclassy said:
He requested his custody record on release.
I've never known this happen. I can't imagine why it would pre-court disclosure, albeit no further action was taken. Has anyone else here known this occur? Dibble said:
If the original solicitor said your friend didn't need a solicitor there to "do" anything, then why would he need a solicitor there at all? It's bad advice, IMHO. There may well have been further evidence/disclosure between the first and second appointments, so at the very least, the original solicitor should (again, IMHO) have advised your friend to at the very least get phone advice.
It is terrible advice and just adds to the ever-growing odd facets of what's being described. I have booked many many many voluntary attenders into "custody" in the loosest sense of the word as of course they are free to go at any time, they have exactly the same rights as someone who is under arrest once they are in the police station - free legal advice.
They are all told this during the booking in procedure and quite a few take up the opportunity.
This story sounds odd, either the cops involved have totally ignored the procedure, the force in question has crap procedures or we are not being told the truth!
They are all told this during the booking in procedure and quite a few take up the opportunity.
This story sounds odd, either the cops involved have totally ignored the procedure, the force in question has crap procedures or we are not being told the truth!
La Liga said:
Eclassy said:
No complaint yet. He is seriously considering suing so he doesn't want to give too much away
It won't make a difference to any civil proceedings. Eclassy said:
he plans to complain but in very few words as he is 99% certain to be fobbed off.
If he were and there were a case for unlawful arrest / detention in the civil courts, this wouldn't reflect well on the police. Eclassy said:
He requested his custody record on release.
I've never known this happen. I can't imagine why it would pre-court disclosure, albeit no further action was taken. Has anyone else here known this occur? Dibble said:
If the original solicitor said your friend didn't need a solicitor there to "do" anything, then why would he need a solicitor there at all? It's bad advice, IMHO. There may well have been further evidence/disclosure between the first and second appointments, so at the very least, the original solicitor should (again, IMHO) have advised your friend to at the very least get phone advice.
It is terrible advice and just adds to the ever-growing odd facets of what's being described. I have a strong feeling the original solicitor wasnt prepared to travel 80 miles to have his time wasted all over again so he was really telling my friend ''use a duty solicitor'' which is what he requested.
This was a simple allegation of ''You stole my laptop and watch'' so I doubt there was any further evidence/disclosure prior to the second interview. Even if there was, he still did the right thing by asking for a (duty) solicitor.
2G When the person attends the police
station voluntarily for interview by
arrangement as in Note 2F above, their arrest on arrival at the station
prior to interview would only be justified if:
•
new information coming to light after the arrangements were made
indicates that from that time, voluntary attendance ceased to be a
practicable alternative and the person’s arrest became necessary; and
•
it was not reasonably practicable for the person to be arrested before
they attended the station.
He wasn't arrested prior to interview. The interview commenced, my friend asked for a solicitor, he is then arrested. This is exactly what how he described events. Remember he is seeking peoples opinion whether he should commence civil action so he'd be very stupid to tell me lies. He surely wont be able to repeat those lies if this goes to court.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff