Issued COVID FPN by a police officer

[Oceanrower]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There normally is...

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Then, surely, the copper would have mentioned that.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Because they don’t need to. We don’t live in a police state. I cannot understand why people find it so easy to give up their freedom.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ah. That old one. You don’t have to have something to hide. You just have to have a belief in civil liberties.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And what the flying fk has that to do with anything? Was this bloke sitting on a bench with false number plates round his neck on his way to kill a hooker? Biggest straw man yet!

[Pegscratch]

Oceanrower said:

Was this bloke sitting on a bench with false number plates round his neck on his way to kill a hooker?

fking laughed at that. I'm going to hell.

[XCP]

Pegscratch said:

XCP said:

I think a strip search was mentioned. That tends to suggest little in the way of cooperation. I wonder how his ID was obtained. Perhaps he wanted a solicitor.

Are we really living in a country where doing nothing illegal and merely not telling the police who you are and how you're doing nothing illegal gets you strip searched?

Yes, for valid reasons.
He may be concealing drugs, weapons or be a self harmer. Hard to check for warnings without an ID. Much easier to avoid all this by giving details in the first place. Most relent when their detention is authorised, some give false details of course. This has been held to be obstructing an officer in the execution of their duty.
I once had a chap who pretended to be an illegal immigrant, hoping to be deported. Turned out he had a crown court warrant for rape.

[Oceanrower]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Incidentally, you ever considered becoming Home Secretary? You’d be great!

[Greendubber]

Pegscratch said:

XCP said:

I think a strip search was mentioned. That tends to suggest little in the way of cooperation. I wonder how his ID was obtained. Perhaps he wanted a solicitor.

Are we really living in a country where doing nothing illegal and merely not telling the police who you are and how you're doing nothing illegal gets you strip searched?

If someone is going to be placed in a cell in custody and they're refusing to offer any details or answer the safer detention questions from the custody officer then they need to be fully searched. That involves making sure they have nothing ANYWHERE that they can use to harm themselves etc. Not ideal, no one wants to do it but it's more favorable than someone cutting their own throat in a cell with a concealed razor blade (which has happened)

[Oceanrower]

XCP said:

Pegscratch said:

XCP said:

I think a strip search was mentioned. That tends to suggest little in the way of cooperation. I wonder how his ID was obtained. Perhaps he wanted a solicitor.

Are we really living in a country where doing nothing illegal and merely not telling the police who you are and how you're doing nothing illegal gets you strip searched?

Yes, for valid reasons.
He may be concealing drugs, weapons or be a self harmer. Hard to check for warnings without an ID. Much easier to avoid all this by giving details in the first place. Most relent when their detention is authorised, some give false details of course. This has been held to be obstructing an officer in the execution of their duty.
I once had a chap who pretended to be an illegal immigrant, hoping to be deported. Turned out he had a crown court warrant for rape.

What! So, no reasonable grounds for suspicion? No need to commit an offence? Just dive on in with the strip search...

fk me!

[Greendubber]

Oceanrower said:

XCP said:

Pegscratch said:

XCP said:

I think a strip search was mentioned. That tends to suggest little in the way of cooperation. I wonder how his ID was obtained. Perhaps he wanted a solicitor.

Are we really living in a country where doing nothing illegal and merely not telling the police who you are and how you're doing nothing illegal gets you strip searched?

Yes, for valid reasons.
He may be concealing drugs, weapons or be a self harmer. Hard to check for warnings without an ID. Much easier to avoid all this by giving details in the first place. Most relent when their detention is authorised, some give false details of course. This has been held to be obstructing an officer in the execution of their duty.
I once had a chap who pretended to be an illegal immigrant, hoping to be deported. Turned out he had a crown court warrant for rape.

What! So, no reasonable grounds for suspicion? No need to commit an offence? Just dive on in with the strip search...

fk me!

Its what happens in custody, that person is the responsibility of the custody officer so in some circumstances a strip search will be authorised. People have used concealed weapons to self harm in custody loads of times, putting a completely unknown person who is refusing to answer questions to enable a full RA to be carried out will not simply be placed into a cell and left to it.

The questions are independent to any police enquiries etc, they're purely there to manage the welfare of the detained person. If they refuse to engage with them it'll result in a 'worst case' scenario and a belt and braces approach from the custody staff.

[Oceanrower]

That part I’m not disagreeing with. My point is he should not have been in custody.

Even in these times, as far as I am aware, sitting on a bench is not an arrestable offence.

I believe that to compel you to give your details an officer has to have a genuine belief that an offence has been committed. Refusing to give your details is not a reason to arrest someone if they have done no wrong.

[XCP]

Oceanrower said:

What! So, no reasonable grounds for suspicion? No need to commit an offence? Just dive on in with the strip search...

fk me!

Once his detention is authorised, as it was in this case, PACE codes of practice apply, which cover when a strip search can be authorised by the custody officer. His detention was quite lawful, no-one has suggested it wasn't.
As I have said several times, much easier to avoid all the aggravation by giving one's details. That is not an admission of guilt.

[Greendubber]

Oceanrower said:

That part I’m not disagreeing with. My point is he should not have been in custody.

Even in these times, as far as I am aware, sitting on a bench is not an arrestable offence.

I believe that to compel you to give your details an officer has to have a genuine belief that an offence has been committed. Refusing to give your details is not a reason to arrest someone if they have done no wrong.

Thats fair enough, but he was in custody rightly or wrongly.

I'm just explaining why he was strip searched, the custody officer doesn't have any involvement in the investigation so just needs to make sure that person is as safe as can be (from themselves 99% of the time) I'd imagine his detention had been authorised though so it would be interesting to hear the circumstances of arrest given by the arresting officer.

[Pegscratch]

Oceanrower said:

I believe that to compel you to give your details an officer has to have a genuine belief that an offence has been committed. Refusing to give your details is not a reason to arrest someone if they have done no wrong.

I get the impression you're arguing the sky is blue and they're arguing the grass is green; in that you can both be right. Correct me if I'm wrong folks but you're assuming at this point that the arrest and detention was reasonable, giving rise to the potential need to strip search?

[XCP]

Oceanrower said:

That part I’m not disagreeing with. My point is he should not have been in custody.

Even in these times, as far as I am aware, sitting on a bench is not an arrestable offence.

I believe that to compel you to give your details an officer has to have a genuine belief that an offence has been committed. Refusing to give your details is not a reason to arrest someone if they have done no wrong.

Can I suggest you read Section 24 of PACE as amended in relation to the general arrest provisions. I believe the appeal court judges referred to it. The reason that there is no compulsion to give name and and address in relation to covid law is because of this. ( according to the judges)

[Oceanrower]

XCP said:

Once his detention is authorised, as it was in this case, PACE codes of practice apply, which cover when a strip search can be authorised by the custody officer. His detention was quite lawful, no-one has suggested it wasn't.
As I have said several times, much easier to avoid all the aggravation by giving one's details. That is not an admission of guilt.

His detention might have been lawful, in that it was authorised but it doesn’t mean his arrest was. As I said above

Oceanrower said:

That part I’m not disagreeing with. My point is he should not have been in custody.

Even in these times, as far as I am aware, sitting on a bench is not an arrestable offence.

I believe that to compel you to give your details an officer has to have a genuine belief that an offence has been committed. Refusing to give your details is not a reason to arrest someone if they have done no wrong.

[XCP]

Pegscratch said:

I get the impression you're arguing the sky is blue and they're arguing the grass is green; in that you can both be right. Correct me if I'm wrong folks but you're assuming at this point that the arrest and detention was reasonable, giving rise to the potential need to strip search?

I am not aware of any suggestion that the arrest, detention or strip search were unlawful. If they had been no doubt that would be subject to legal action.

[Cam Ladash]

Graveworm said:

Cam Ladash said:

XCP

Going back to the case of Keith Neale in Newport City Center , who was sitting on a park bench, waiting for an MOT. Police approached, not knowing he was waiting for an MOT, Neale refused to account and identify himself to a police officer, the police arrested him and issued a FPN and charged him with obstruction.

Yesterday (Tuesday)at 21:32(forum page 19), in relation to Keith Neale you said;

XCP said:

If I were him though I would give my name and contest the PCN rather than get arrested under S24 PACE.

Today page 20, in answer to Issac Hunt's question;

"Why do some people have such an issue with identifying who they are when asked by an officer. "

you said;

"It's a fair question.
The 2 options are: give name and get a ticket or don't give name, get arrested, and then get a ticket.  "

Can I ask you, the following. I'd also be pleased to hear responses from any other police or ex-person or legal person on these forums.

Question 1) Why would you feel the need, in law, to investigate a person who is sat on a bench? Sitting on a bench is not illegal under the health protection legislation.

I can see that it is true that a person needs a reasonable excuse to be outside their home. The legislation has declared many reasons for being outside your house as intrinsically (to the law) reasonable.

For example, previous listed on this forum;

- visiting a garden centre for a browse
- popping down to the off-licence
- going to browse in a DIY store to look at paint colours
- wandering around a bike shop
- going down to town to get a takeout coffee
- going to look at goldfish and rabbits in the pet shop
- going to get your car washed
- going for a walk or a bike ride (and the regulations don’t restrict where that has to be)  including with one other person from a different household.
- visit a church.
- taking a look at a show home on a new housing development because you might be thinking about moving some time in the future 
- going out to pick up the takeaway you ordered  
- taking the hedge clippings to the local dump

With these in mind, surely any normal thinking person would also have to agree that sitting on a bench is just as reasonable as any of the other reasons already declared reasonable by the law itself.

Why would a police person think it worthwhile to expend resources investigating a person sitting on a bench?

Question 2) My understanding of Section 24 of Pace is that you are required  to have "reasonable grounds" (not just suspicion) to make a lawful arrest. What grounds would you, or any police person have to have arrested Neale? He was sat on a bench, which is lawful. He declined to identify or account, which he is not obliged to do. There was no other information, Neale did not break the law, nor was there any 'reasonable grounds' to make an arrest, keeping in mind, Rice verses Connolly 1965.

I'd be grateful to hear what you, or any police and legal eagle types think. Many thanks. 

They were not at home. Sitting on a bench is not one of the listed reasons that is a reasonable excuse, of course there are a lot of times when a reasonable excuse will exist for someone sitting on a bench. (Onus of proving a reasonable excuse, for an offence is, by default, on the person accused).

Without any other information or explanation that's well above the (Very low) bar for reasonable grounds to suspect. Doesn't mean officers have to, or even should deal with it, but that's not the same as no reasonable grounds exist.

Many thanks for your considered reply Graveworm. I'm glad that we both seem to be of the view that sitting on a bench is lawful under the health protection legislation. You, at the least, state that sitting on a bench is lawful if the person has a reasonable excuse.

I wonder if you would be so kind as to rethink your reply after consideration of a couple of points to see if you draw the same conclusion.

My points are as follows;
- The material facts of the Neale case were plain for all to see before interference of the Police. Simply, a man was outside sitting on a bench.
- Sitting on a bench, is at the very least, comparable with all the other actions that the law intrinsically declares as reasonable and therefore lawful. Sitting on a bench is very comparable to being outside for the purposes on exercise.
- A principal of law is that “the laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation." Therefore, if it is reasonable for one person to sit on a bench (perhaps for the benefit of their health), it is reasonable for any and all person to sit outside for the same purpose.
- Neale could have obliged the police with an answer as to what he was doing, for example "I am sitting on a bench" or "I am sitting on a bench because it is good for my health" but these facts are plain to see and obvious without the account of Neale. His answer would not change the information available to the police and therefore the Polices' inquiry would have been superfluous.
- Rice verses Connolly 1966(not 1965) set legal precedent that there is no general common law duty to assist the police and a person cannot be guilty of willfully obstructing a police officer by remaining silent when questioned if there is no legal duty to answer questions.
- The so called Coronavirus regulations confer no new or additional legal obligation to account or identify to a policeman.
- Silence from a person questioned by a Policeman cannot be used to provide grounds for arrest.
- In the face of silence from Neale, the police had no other evidence that Neale was breaking the law, or about to break the law. The only information that the Police had was that Neale was sitting on a bench outside. Sitting on a bench is lawful and therefore not grounds for arrest.
- It is the duty of the police to be sure they can provide grounds for arrest, You said "(Onus of proving a reasonable excuse, for an offence is, by default, on the person accused)." but, in accordance with the legal precedent of Rice v Connolly, the accused person is under no obligation to speak, nor can their silence be taken as grounds for arrest. Therefore it is for the Police to show that the person's activity fell below the (very low threshold) of what is reasonable. Since Neale was not lawfully obliged to speak( not even under the new legislation) the onus for providing a reasonable excuse cannot fall upon him. It is for the Police to prove that Neale did not have a reasonable excuse.
- Had the police obtained grounds to believe that Neale was intending to do something illegal under the Coronavirus regulations, such as gather with more than one person not from his household, open a shop that is not permitted to be open, attend a funeral with more than the legal number of people,etc, then the police would been able to make a lawful arrest even in the face of silence from Neale.
- Since Neale was doing nothing unlawful, and the Police had no grounds (evidence) to believe he was breaking the law, or being about to break the law, the arrest of Neale was unlawful.
- An unlawful arrest exposes the Police, and indirectly, the public purse, to a civil claim from those who are unlawfully arrested.

• edit to change suspect to believe in 2nd to last sentence.

Edited by Cam Ladash on Thursday 4th March 10:58

[Oceanrower]

I “think” that was the point I was trying to make.

But I got lost about half way through. Sorry.

[Pegscratch]

XCP said:

I am not aware of any suggestion that the arrest, detention or strip search were unlawful. If they had been no doubt that would be subject to legal action.

Guy above me put it better than I could have done. With the information in front of them there was nothing available to the police to suggest that hauling him into a station was a sensible or necessary course of action.

[XCP]

Not according to the judges.

[monthou]

XCP said:

I am not aware of any suggestion that the arrest, detention or strip search were unlawful. If they had been no doubt that would be subject to legal action.

It still might be, surely. The original charge has been appealed, that's all.
It comes down to whether the pc had reasonable cause to believe Neale had been / was committing an offence.
Given it's Wales sitting on a bench is probably enough.

[Graveworm]

Cam Ladash said:

Many thanks for your considered reply Graveworm. I'm glad that we both seem to be of the view that sitting on a bench is lawful under the health protection legislation. You, at the least, state that sitting on a bench is lawful if the person has a reasonable excuse.

I wonder if you would be so kind as to rethink your reply after consideration of a couple of points to see if you draw the same conclusion.

My points are as follows;
- The material facts of the Neale case were plain for all to see before interference of the Police. Simply, a man was outside sitting on a bench.
- Sitting on a bench, is at the very least, comparable with all the other actions that the law intrinsically declares as reasonable and therefore lawful. Sitting on a bench is very comparable to being outside for the purposes on exercise.
- A principal of law is that “the laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation." Therefore, if it is reasonable for one person to sit on a bench (perhaps for the benefit of their health), it is reasonable for any and all person to sit outside for the same purpose.
- Neale could have obliged the police with an answer as to what he was doing, for example "I am sitting on a bench" or "I am sitting on a bench because it is good for my health" but these facts are plain to see and obvious without the account of Neale. His answer would not change the information available to the police and therefore the Polices' inquiry would have been superfluous.
- Rice verses Connolly 1966(not 1965) set legal precedent that there is no general common law duty to assist the police and a person cannot be guilty of willfully obstructing a police officer by remaining silent when questioned if there is no legal duty to answer questions.
- The so called Coronavirus regulations confer no new or additional legal obligation to account or identify to a policeman.
- Silence from a person questioned by a Policeman cannot be used to provide grounds for arrest.
- In the face of silence from Neale, the police had no other evidence that Neale was breaking the law, or about to break the law. The only information that the Police had was that Neale was sitting on a bench outside. Sitting on a bench is lawful and therefore not grounds for arrest.
- It is the duty of the police to be sure they can provide grounds for arrest, You said "(Onus of proving a reasonable excuse, for an offence is, by default, on the person accused)." but, in accordance with the legal precedent of Rice v Connolly, the accused person is under no obligation to speak, nor can their silence be taken as grounds for arrest. Therefore it is for the Police to show that the person's activity fell below the (very low threshold) of what is reasonable. Since Neale was not lawfully obliged to speak( not even under the new legislation) the onus for providing a reasonable excuse cannot fall upon him. It is for the Police to prove that Neale did not have a reasonable excuse.
- Had the police obtained grounds to believe that Neale was intending to do something illegal under the Coronavirus regulations, such as gather with more than one person not from his household, open a shop that is not permitted to be open, attend a funeral with more than the legal number of people,etc, then the police would been able to make a lawful arrest even in the face of silence from Neale.
- Since Neale was doing nothing unlawful, and the Police had no grounds (evidence) to believe he was breaking the law, or being about to break the law, the arrest of Neale was unlawful.
- An unlawful arrest exposes the Police, and indirectly, the public purse, to a civil claim from those who are unlawfully arrested.

• edit to change suspect to believe in 2nd to last sentence.

They are not obliged to speak, answer questions or provide any defence but that doesn't change the burden of proving a defence or exception. RVC was that it is not obstructing police merely by not assisting them. The officer was free to decide that sitting on a bench is not the same as exercise and I agree. If it formed part of exercise or as in this case waiting as part of another reasonable excuse then sure, which is what the court found. The officer couldn't possibly know that without some help from Neale.

A court would ultimately decide in all cases. The grounds for arrest are if they reasonably suspect that an offence has been committed and they reasonable suspect that the person is guilty of the offence. They don't need belief. Then they require a necessity to arrest, one of those criteria is not being able to ascertain their name or address.

Reasonable excuse, has been around for a long time in law. For example:
If a person is out and about using a knife for their work it's a reasonable excuse and they are innocent. If they carrying a knife and they have a reasonable excuse they are still innocent. A Police officer in the first case can see what they are doing and can infer the reasonable excuse. In the second case if he asks them about the knife and they refuse to answer should the officer say well I can't be sure they don't have a reasonable excuse so I'll walk away. We now live in the ridiculous times where, being away from your home, is the same as having a knife, in terms of where the burden falls.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 4th March 11:34