S44 Terrorism act - any reasonble grounds?
Discussion
Hi,
A mate has just told me he was stopped for 40 odd minutes in London on Saturday - the grounds the officer gave was "heightened security in London". Do they need better grounds than that to stop and search? Oh, officer also said he was going to be arrested if he didn't have his driving license as, in today's climate, it was stupid not to have one!?!!??!
A mate has just told me he was stopped for 40 odd minutes in London on Saturday - the grounds the officer gave was "heightened security in London". Do they need better grounds than that to stop and search? Oh, officer also said he was going to be arrested if he didn't have his driving license as, in today's climate, it was stupid not to have one!?!!??!
Happens to me also on a regular basis , found out that it has to be in a "designated area" if they want to stop and search without the OK from snr officer .
Dont forget to ask for coffee after 1 hour !
It seems there are no comebacks on this new little feature that has been added to the UK law system.
Dont forget to ask for coffee after 1 hour !
It seems there are no comebacks on this new little feature that has been added to the UK law system.
s.44 allows any person or vehicle to be stopped and searched without grounds. This power has to be authorised by a senior officer to cover a ceratin area for an amount of time. The driving licence bit sounds nonsence unless he was going to be dealt with for an offence and they couldn't prove his address by any other means (?).
Jasandjules said:
Oh, officer also said he was going to be arrested if he didn't have his driving license as, in today's climate, it was stupid not to have one!?!!??!
So you can be arrested for 'stupidity' now can you?
Yes officer, there is a lot going on, the main centre is over there.
Yes, a bit further along - behind those big gates. Yes, that's it, Downing Street.
Yup No. 10, pay rise you say?
I see officer that we are now on the same page - yes, no.10 just ring the bell and arrest everyone in sight.
kitbags said:
s.44 allows any person or vehicle to be stopped and searched without grounds. This power has to be authorised by a senior officer to cover a ceratin area for an amount of time. The driving licence bit sounds nonsence unless he was going to be dealt with for an offence and they couldn't prove his address by any other means (?).
Well, he wasn't carrying any ID, simply a cash card and money, he was going to a friends house for dinner. I didn't realise we lived in a country where it was mandatory to carry ID. The officer did a PNC check etc.. and I suspect the only reason it all suddenly got polite (she was being very ar**y he reckons) is the point at which she asked about his GF, who was a Barrister, sat in the front seat with a copy of PACE...Jasandjules said:
kitbags said:
s.44 allows any person or vehicle to be stopped and searched without grounds. This power has to be authorised by a senior officer to cover a ceratin area for an amount of time. The driving licence bit sounds nonsence unless he was going to be dealt with for an offence and they couldn't prove his address by any other means (?).
Well, he wasn't carrying any ID, simply a cash card and money, he was going to a friends house for dinner. I didn't realise we lived in a country where it was mandatory to carry ID. The officer did a PNC check etc.. and I suspect the only reason it all suddenly got polite (she was being very ar**y he reckons) is the point at which she asked about his GF, who was a Barrister, sat in the front seat with a copy of PACE...tigger1 said:
Great story and all - but does PACE even apply in the case of any srt of suspected "terrorism" activity?
My understanding is that PACE applies at all points of a criminal proceeding, no matter what, but I could well be wrong i.e. a caution must be issued and understood before questioning if they are to be used in evidence etc..She was apparantly doing some work on the way so to dinner so had PACE, I think he said Archbold and a Criminal Evidence book sat there too....
Jasandjules said:
tigger1 said:
Great story and all - but does PACE even apply in the case of any srt of suspected "terrorism" activity?
My understanding is that PACE applies at all points of a criminal proceeding, no matter what, but I could well be wrong i.e. a caution must be issued and understood before questioning if they are to be used in evidence etc..She was apparantly doing some work on the way so to dinner so had PACE, I think he said Archbold and a Criminal Evidence book sat there too....
As said, no grounds needed if it's designated area/time. PACE still covers the conduct of the search & a caution is only required where you have reasonable grounds to suspect someone of an offence & you wish to question them further about it. Caution not required to establish name, address, for questions unrelated to suspected offence etc etc.
vonhosen said:
Why does he need you to ask here if his girlfriend is a barrister with a copy of PACE ?
As said, no grounds needed if it's designated area/time. PACE still covers the conduct of the search & a caution is only required where you have reasonable grounds to suspect someone of an offence & you wish to question them further about it. Caution not required to establish name, address, for questions unrelated to suspected offence etc etc.
She asked about the GF sat in the front, I don't know why I'm afraid, once she had seen the collection of law books sat in the car with them. She also asked him how long they had been going out etc.. which has feck all to do with anything as far as I can tell.As said, no grounds needed if it's designated area/time. PACE still covers the conduct of the search & a caution is only required where you have reasonable grounds to suspect someone of an offence & you wish to question them further about it. Caution not required to establish name, address, for questions unrelated to suspected offence etc etc.
She cautioned him for a road offence (he got an FPN for it, no right turn I think he said, he didn't notice as he followed two other cars doing the same in whatever part of London he was in), but questioned him about all sorts of things rather unrelated to the road offence, as above, including how long he'd been with his Girlfriend.
I'm thinking this country is already going too far into a police state, those liberties hard fought for are being eroded by those charged with protecting them.
And CP, you're not wrong... A few weeks back I had to correct a Partner in a law firm as to his understanding of a fairly basic aspect of law... He wasn't amused. But then, I've also had to correct a couple of police officers...........
Oh I don't doubt it.
The thing is as a custody officer you live and breath PACE and the CofP every working day for years. Your job depends on your knowledge.
A Barrister has to know about a hell of a lot more and it is not surprising that they are not as clued up on the minutiae of the codes of practice.
I got a telling off for being 'argumentative' towards counsel.
Not really, I was on oath and sworn to tell the truth. Which happened to be that he was wrong
But he earns a lot more than me so I doubt if he cares a jot.
The thing is as a custody officer you live and breath PACE and the CofP every working day for years. Your job depends on your knowledge.
A Barrister has to know about a hell of a lot more and it is not surprising that they are not as clued up on the minutiae of the codes of practice.
I got a telling off for being 'argumentative' towards counsel.
Not really, I was on oath and sworn to tell the truth. Which happened to be that he was wrong
But he earns a lot more than me so I doubt if he cares a jot.
Chrispy Porker said:
I got a telling off for being 'argumentative' towards counsel.
Not really, I was on oath and sworn to tell the truth. Which happened to be that he was wrong
But he earns a lot more than me so I doubt if he cares a jot.
Yes, the judiciary are inclined to "protect their own" so to speak, I've seen that in action. I've also seen police officers pretty much lie through their teeth to protect their own as well. It's sad that people aren't honest when they should be, I hate it when counsel bend the truth a bit..And it's worse when the judiciary "interpret" in a specific way to get what they want to happen. But such is life.Not really, I was on oath and sworn to tell the truth. Which happened to be that he was wrong
But he earns a lot more than me so I doubt if he cares a jot.
A half decent criminal Barrister will know PACE inside and out, and believe me, a junior criminal barrister will not be earning anywhere near your salary, 10-15k is not exactly a good wage for a degree, 12k Bar course, and one year of pupillage....
DPX said:
Happens to me also on a regular basis , found out that it has to be in a "designated area" if they want to stop and search without the OK from snr officer .
Dont forget to ask for coffee after 1 hour !
It seems there are no comebacks on this new little feature that has been added to the UK law system.
Sacking the entire political class is my preferred option.Dont forget to ask for coffee after 1 hour !
It seems there are no comebacks on this new little feature that has been added to the UK law system.
Jasandjules said:
Hi,
A mate has just told me he was stopped for 40 odd minutes in London on Saturday - the grounds the officer gave was "heightened security in London". Do they need better grounds than that to stop and search? Oh, officer also said he was going to be arrested if he didn't have his driving license as, in today's climate, it was stupid not to have one!?!!??!
Make a formal complaint.A mate has just told me he was stopped for 40 odd minutes in London on Saturday - the grounds the officer gave was "heightened security in London". Do they need better grounds than that to stop and search? Oh, officer also said he was going to be arrested if he didn't have his driving license as, in today's climate, it was stupid not to have one!?!!??!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff