Do police now have a criteria for arrest
Discussion
My employer was approached by a person who had been assaulted and robbed.
Person "A" was attacked by person "B" which person "A" recorded on his mobile phone and showed the police and person "A" also told the police his property had been stolen by person "B".
When they police arrived they approached person (B) after speaking to person (A) and left telling person (A) they classed the video of the assault he had recorded on his mobile phone as "battery" but would not be arresting person (B) because of their new criteria of arrest
1 - do they know where the person lives - yes
2 - is the person likely to leave the UK - No
3 - does the accused agree to attend a voluntary interview - yes.
This is the first I have heard of a new criteria of arrest, has this police officer made this up.
Person "A" was attacked by person "B" which person "A" recorded on his mobile phone and showed the police and person "A" also told the police his property had been stolen by person "B".
When they police arrived they approached person (B) after speaking to person (A) and left telling person (A) they classed the video of the assault he had recorded on his mobile phone as "battery" but would not be arresting person (B) because of their new criteria of arrest
1 - do they know where the person lives - yes
2 - is the person likely to leave the UK - No
3 - does the accused agree to attend a voluntary interview - yes.
This is the first I have heard of a new criteria of arrest, has this police officer made this up.
Derek Smith said:
I was taught that you need three things for an arrest:
1/ evidence of an arrestable offence (in this case meaning an offence carrying a power of arrest);
2/ evidence that the person committed that offence, and:
3/ a reason to arrest.
That was 1975.
It is different now. As has been said 'necessity' is the criteria now.1/ evidence of an arrestable offence (in this case meaning an offence carrying a power of arrest);
2/ evidence that the person committed that offence, and:
3/ a reason to arrest.
That was 1975.
Not a good system in my opinion, as who say's when 'necessity' applies.
markiii said:
so when they f
k off despite having no risk of flight and you can;t get hold of them then what?
For simple common assault/battery? The police have needed broadly similar reasons to arrest for that since 1984. In fact it is now slightly easier to arrest for offences like this e.g. it includes that they might not turn up at court. If they were arrested they would almost certainly have been bailed from the police station - so the arrest makes no difference to the outcome. Disappearing to avoid what is usually a caution or a small fine is unusual. k off despite having no risk of flight and you can;t get hold of them then what?Edited by Graveworm on Monday 5th November 19:33
LosingGrip said:
Now theyve got the faff of arranging for person B to attend for a voluntarily interview . If they dont play ball then theyll probably finish up arresting them in any case under 2.9(e)Edited by Bigends on Monday 5th November 22:39
Edited by Bigends on Monday 5th November 22:41
Bigends said:
Now theyve got the faff of arranging for person B to attend for a voluntarily interview . If they dont play ball then theyll probably finish up arresting them in any case under 2.9(e)
Correct.That box is nearly always ticked on the custody officers log what ever the circumstance.Edited by Bigends on Monday 5th November 22:39
Edited by Bigends on Monday 5th November 22:41
There is no end of complaints about the police and the manner and reason for arrest since the change from arrestable offences.
gooner1 said:
So why were the scum that handed themselves in to the local Nick
for the Grenfell Tower bonfire disgrace arrested, public consumption?.
Also as horrific as the above was, why were there no arrests over the BJ, TM
effigy burning?
Genuinely curious on both accounts.
See Poo At Paul's reply. for the Grenfell Tower bonfire disgrace arrested, public consumption?.
Also as horrific as the above was, why were there no arrests over the BJ, TM
effigy burning?
Genuinely curious on both accounts.
Oh wait, it's garbage like most of his posts seem to be
There are quite a few necessities for arrest, so the simple answer is one of those was made out. Basically page 3 onwards: https://www.gmpcc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/0...
Which one, I don't know.
^^^ Much easier to arrest them than to face the outpouring of protests they would have got if the perps walked into the station and were not arrested.
Also, I noticed that every report said they were "arrested but not charged"; given that they handed themselves in they may well have been worried about their own safety and the police may have thought the same.
In the OP's case arrest is done for a number of possible reasons; public safety, gathering evidence, severity of crime, identifying a suspect etc. It seems that none of these criteria applied here so an interview later was a better option.
Also, I noticed that every report said they were "arrested but not charged"; given that they handed themselves in they may well have been worried about their own safety and the police may have thought the same.
In the OP's case arrest is done for a number of possible reasons; public safety, gathering evidence, severity of crime, identifying a suspect etc. It seems that none of these criteria applied here so an interview later was a better option.
I think it depends on who the perpetrator is.
I have casually known some dodgy characters and one guy was up in court (most weeks) but this weeks court case was for going into a Michael Kors shop with a bin bag and stuffing it full of expensive hand bags and legging it.
The police showed up at the shop, reviewed the CCTV and immediately recognised him.
He tells me ( could be bks I suppose ) They didn't bother going to his house to arrest him or attempt to recover the loot. He just got a letter telling him when to appear at court. He was charged with stealing £500 worth of bags when in reality it was nearer £10,000.
It sounds pretty weird but I couldn't see why he would lie about it.
I have casually known some dodgy characters and one guy was up in court (most weeks) but this weeks court case was for going into a Michael Kors shop with a bin bag and stuffing it full of expensive hand bags and legging it.
The police showed up at the shop, reviewed the CCTV and immediately recognised him.
He tells me ( could be b
ks I suppose ) They didn't bother going to his house to arrest him or attempt to recover the loot. He just got a letter telling him when to appear at court. He was charged with stealing £500 worth of bags when in reality it was nearer £10,000.It sounds pretty weird but I couldn't see why he would lie about it.
Shuvi McTupya said:
I think it depends on who the perpetrator is.
I have casually known some dodgy characters and one guy was up in court (most weeks) but this weeks court case was for going into a Michael Kors shop with a bin bag and stuffing it full of expensive hand bags and legging it.
The police showed up at the shop, reviewed the CCTV and immediately recognised him.
He tells me ( could be bks I suppose ) They didn't bother going to his house to arrest him or attempt to recover the loot. He just got a letter telling him when to appear at court. He was charged with stealing £500 worth of bags when in reality it was nearer £10,000.
It sounds pretty weird but I couldn't see why he would lie about it.
Serial thief doesnt have a reason to lie? There is a pang of irony in that somewhereI have casually known some dodgy characters and one guy was up in court (most weeks) but this weeks court case was for going into a Michael Kors shop with a bin bag and stuffing it full of expensive hand bags and legging it.
The police showed up at the shop, reviewed the CCTV and immediately recognised him.
He tells me ( could be b
ks I suppose ) They didn't bother going to his house to arrest him or attempt to recover the loot. He just got a letter telling him when to appear at court. He was charged with stealing £500 worth of bags when in reality it was nearer £10,000.It sounds pretty weird but I couldn't see why he would lie about it.
As already stated arrest stopped being the default option after SOCPA came in....
However it also sounds like the initial description of what happened may be a bit off, I would be surprised if a robbery suspect would be VA'd especially if the offence had just occurred.
Necessity - "For the prompt and effective investigation of the offence" - Simples.
What most people describe as "Being robbed innit" transpires as a simple theft (or an argument in which they are equally blameworthy).
However it also sounds like the initial description of what happened may be a bit off, I would be surprised if a robbery suspect would be VA'd especially if the offence had just occurred.
Necessity - "For the prompt and effective investigation of the offence" - Simples.
What most people describe as "Being robbed innit" transpires as a simple theft (or an argument in which they are equally blameworthy).
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff