Grounds for arrest
Discussion
Mate's got himself in a bit of situation with the police, he was arrested held in custody gave his account at interview and was then released with no further action.
As similar happened to me a few months back he's asked my advice. Said he contacted a solicitor found on Google with a view to pursuing a complaint/compensation for unlawful arrest/time in custody but the solicitor said make a complaint yourself then come back to us if it's upheld - obviously they don't want to do the hard work just come in at the end negotiate a compensation amount and take x% off the top for themselves.
Without getting in to specifics the issue boils down to this.
Person A tells a police officer that Person B assaulted them. The officer asks A if they have any injuries as a result of this, A says no. A also says there were no witnesses to this assault.
The officer then speaks to B who denies any assault. Of course "he would say that wouldn't he" might apply here or he might be telling the truth.
I'm assuming there would be no prospect of B being convicted of assault just on A's allegation, beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar. If I'm not wrong about that two questions
Would A's allegation alone with nothing to support it give the officer grounds to believe an offence has been committed allowing him to arrest B?
In deciding whether to arrest B should the officer consider that if he does arrest B there would be no prospect of B being convicted of assault?
Seems to me that if the answer to these is yes and no he's wasting his time. If the answer is no and yes he maybe has something.
As similar happened to me a few months back he's asked my advice. Said he contacted a solicitor found on Google with a view to pursuing a complaint/compensation for unlawful arrest/time in custody but the solicitor said make a complaint yourself then come back to us if it's upheld - obviously they don't want to do the hard work just come in at the end negotiate a compensation amount and take x% off the top for themselves.
Without getting in to specifics the issue boils down to this.
Person A tells a police officer that Person B assaulted them. The officer asks A if they have any injuries as a result of this, A says no. A also says there were no witnesses to this assault.
The officer then speaks to B who denies any assault. Of course "he would say that wouldn't he" might apply here or he might be telling the truth.
I'm assuming there would be no prospect of B being convicted of assault just on A's allegation, beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar. If I'm not wrong about that two questions
Would A's allegation alone with nothing to support it give the officer grounds to believe an offence has been committed allowing him to arrest B?
In deciding whether to arrest B should the officer consider that if he does arrest B there would be no prospect of B being convicted of assault?
Seems to me that if the answer to these is yes and no he's wasting his time. If the answer is no and yes he maybe has something.
Far more information required
Generally "reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed "AND an arrest meets the necessity criteria
You do not have to have an injury to have been assaulted
It matters not what CPS may or may not decide to do , arresting someone is part of an investigation process and when the investigation has been completed an approach might be made to CPS for a charging decision
Generally "reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed "AND an arrest meets the necessity criteria
You do not have to have an injury to have been assaulted
It matters not what CPS may or may not decide to do , arresting someone is part of an investigation process and when the investigation has been completed an approach might be made to CPS for a charging decision
jonsp said:
Mate's got himself in a bit of situation with the police, he was arrested held in custody gave his account at interview and was then released with no further action.
As similar happened to me a few months back he's asked my advice. Said he contacted a solicitor found on Google with a view to pursuing a complaint/compensation for unlawful arrest/time in custody but the solicitor said make a complaint yourself then come back to us if it's upheld - obviously they don't want to do the hard work just come in at the end negotiate a compensation amount and take x% off the top for themselves.
Without getting in to specifics the issue boils down to this.
Person A tells a police officer that Person B assaulted them. The officer asks A if they have any injuries as a result of this, A says no. A also says there were no witnesses to this assault.
The officer then speaks to B who denies any assault. Of course "he would say that wouldn't he" might apply here or he might be telling the truth.
I'm assuming there would be no prospect of B being convicted of assault just on A's allegation, beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar. If I'm not wrong about that two questions
Would A's allegation alone with nothing to support it give the officer grounds to believe an offence has been committed allowing him to arrest B?
In deciding whether to arrest B should the officer consider that if he does arrest B there would be no prospect of B being convicted of assault?
Seems to me that if the answer to these is yes and no he's wasting his time. If the answer is no and yes he maybe has something.
Your understanding of the law around powers of arrest is incorrect, google PACE Code G if you want to read about it fully. As similar happened to me a few months back he's asked my advice. Said he contacted a solicitor found on Google with a view to pursuing a complaint/compensation for unlawful arrest/time in custody but the solicitor said make a complaint yourself then come back to us if it's upheld - obviously they don't want to do the hard work just come in at the end negotiate a compensation amount and take x% off the top for themselves.
Without getting in to specifics the issue boils down to this.
Person A tells a police officer that Person B assaulted them. The officer asks A if they have any injuries as a result of this, A says no. A also says there were no witnesses to this assault.
The officer then speaks to B who denies any assault. Of course "he would say that wouldn't he" might apply here or he might be telling the truth.
I'm assuming there would be no prospect of B being convicted of assault just on A's allegation, beyond reasonable doubt is a high bar. If I'm not wrong about that two questions
Would A's allegation alone with nothing to support it give the officer grounds to believe an offence has been committed allowing him to arrest B?
In deciding whether to arrest B should the officer consider that if he does arrest B there would be no prospect of B being convicted of assault?
Seems to me that if the answer to these is yes and no he's wasting his time. If the answer is no and yes he maybe has something.
The officer has to suspect an offence has been committed, not believed, and has to believe that the person they are arresting is responsible for the offence, the bar for grounds to suspect is much lower than that of grounds to believe.
The officer still has to form their opinion that the arrest is necessary which is another step for the officer to overcome and there are a number of necessity criteria which have to be considered.
The realistic prospect of a conviction comes in at the stage of making a charging decision not at the time of arrest.
I'm sure AGTLaw will come along at some point to set it out better than I have and explain it.
To me there is not enough detail to decide if your friend has a claim or not but I suspect that the fact a Solicitor has said come back when you get a claim upheld indicates they are not convinced.
Thanks for the clear explanation.
If A says B assaulted them B would obviously deny doing so, he wouldn't admit it even if he had. But the officer could suspect (rather than the higher bar of believe) an offence has been committed so he could legitimately arrest B on the basis of that allegation.
In making the decision to arrest the officer would not be expected to consider the even higher bar of whether charges/conviction may result. That would be somebody else's job.
If I've understood you correctly mate's wasting his time pursuing this, as you suggest he solicitor he contacted was trying to tell him the same thing. He came to me because he knows I had significant compensation from the police a few months ago for a wrongful arrest but my situation was rather different.
If A says B assaulted them B would obviously deny doing so, he wouldn't admit it even if he had. But the officer could suspect (rather than the higher bar of believe) an offence has been committed so he could legitimately arrest B on the basis of that allegation.
In making the decision to arrest the officer would not be expected to consider the even higher bar of whether charges/conviction may result. That would be somebody else's job.
If I've understood you correctly mate's wasting his time pursuing this, as you suggest he solicitor he contacted was trying to tell him the same thing. He came to me because he knows I had significant compensation from the police a few months ago for a wrongful arrest but my situation was rather different.
If he wins the independent complaint against the police he can then move onto a civil law suit. He can expect to waste about 3 years of his life doing this as well as funding it.
If he got to trial he may win or lose. It's unlikely he'd get much in the way of compensation and could still have to pay something towards costs.
If he got to trial he may win or lose. It's unlikely he'd get much in the way of compensation and could still have to pay something towards costs.
Boosted LS1 said:
If he wins the independent complaint against the police he can then move onto a civil law suit. He can expect to waste about 3 years of his life doing this as well as funding it.
If he got to trial he may win or lose. It's unlikely he'd get much in the way of compensation and could still have to pay something towards costs.
That's not been my experience. Faced with a valid claim for wrongful arrest police lawyers (mate is same force as me, for all I know other forces policy may vary) will aim to settle quickly. In my case money in the bank 8 weeks after my arrest, only time/effort involved from my side was a couple of emails. I'd have settled for £1 just as an acknowledgement the police were wrong but the amount offered was rather more than that. If he got to trial he may win or lose. It's unlikely he'd get much in the way of compensation and could still have to pay something towards costs.
Based on this mate thinks I'm some kind of expert which I'm definitely not, I just had right on my side which does still count for something. I'd love to help him but I also don't want to waste his or my time. Hence the questions.
OP without a lot more factual information you are wasting his time. your time and our time !
Once your mate was arrested he will have been taken to a Custody area and the circumstances of the arrest given to the Custody Sergeant in the presence of your mate.
The Custody Sergeant then has to decide if in their opinion
1) the arrest was lawful
and
2) that it is "necessary" to detain your mate
and
3) your mate then has to be told why he us being detained
AND your mate then has the right to free and independent legal advice at any time whilst in Custody - something they do not appear to have exercised
I am not saying mistakes do not happen, but having been the Custody Sergeant and having booked in 1000s of prisoners i can think of only one occasion when i considered the arrest was unlawful and i did not detain the person but released them immediately.
The law is full of "reasonable grounds to believe" requirements - and that is the reasonable opinion of one person with the known facts at the time the decision was made
The fact the "Google Solicitors" are not interested speaks volumes
Once your mate was arrested he will have been taken to a Custody area and the circumstances of the arrest given to the Custody Sergeant in the presence of your mate.
The Custody Sergeant then has to decide if in their opinion
1) the arrest was lawful
and
2) that it is "necessary" to detain your mate
and
3) your mate then has to be told why he us being detained
AND your mate then has the right to free and independent legal advice at any time whilst in Custody - something they do not appear to have exercised
I am not saying mistakes do not happen, but having been the Custody Sergeant and having booked in 1000s of prisoners i can think of only one occasion when i considered the arrest was unlawful and i did not detain the person but released them immediately.
The law is full of "reasonable grounds to believe" requirements - and that is the reasonable opinion of one person with the known facts at the time the decision was made
The fact the "Google Solicitors" are not interested speaks volumes
edthefed said:
having been the Custody Sergeant and having booked in 1000s of prisoners i can think of only one occasion when i considered the arrest was unlawful and i did not detain the person but released them immediately.
Of course I appreciate when your colleagues bring somebody in you would tend to believe they had acted correctly and authorise detention unless you had a (very) good reason not to. As you say 1 in thousands.. Beyond that, are you saying that if the custody sergeant authorised detention the arrest is automatically lawful and the DP has no legitimate grounds for complaint?
Dingu said:
caziques said:
If you have committed an offence, don't talk to the police.
If you haven't committed an offence, don't talk to the police.
As unfunny as ever. If you haven't committed an offence, don't talk to the police.
Just what would have to happen for these people to be a witness. Not common assault by the sound of it.
Violent robbery of an old lady? Abduction or assault on their nearest and dearest? And forgive me for going all David Brent, rape?
In answer to the OP, it sounds like a promotion exam question, but yes to arrest being almost certainly lawful ; conviction almost certainly not.
Edited by standards on Monday 18th December 16:41
My standard approach was always
1) Ask the officer what were the circumstances and why has this perspn been arrested
2) Ask the detainee "Do you understand why you have been arrested, you may not agree but do you understand"
3) Consider the grounds for continued detention and inform the detainee that "i am authorising your detention for the purpose of...
4) Explain rights under PACE , solicitor, right to have someone informed etc
5) Do you have any questions .
The decision to detain someone has to be reviewed by an officer of the rank of Inspector or above after 6 hours, then at 9 hour intervals. The Inspector would ask the Custody Sgt why the person was still custody, the detainee would be allowed to make representations and then the Inspector makes a decision on whether to authorise further detention.
If the Custody Sgt and reviewing Inspector have acted "reasonably" and in accordance with the law then it will be extremely difficult to unlawful detention.
Mistakes can be made but 99.9 % of Custody Sgts and Inspectors act very professionally doing a very difficult job. They must also be "independent" of any investigation.
1) Ask the officer what were the circumstances and why has this perspn been arrested
2) Ask the detainee "Do you understand why you have been arrested, you may not agree but do you understand"
3) Consider the grounds for continued detention and inform the detainee that "i am authorising your detention for the purpose of...
4) Explain rights under PACE , solicitor, right to have someone informed etc
5) Do you have any questions .
The decision to detain someone has to be reviewed by an officer of the rank of Inspector or above after 6 hours, then at 9 hour intervals. The Inspector would ask the Custody Sgt why the person was still custody, the detainee would be allowed to make representations and then the Inspector makes a decision on whether to authorise further detention.
If the Custody Sgt and reviewing Inspector have acted "reasonably" and in accordance with the law then it will be extremely difficult to unlawful detention.
Mistakes can be made but 99.9 % of Custody Sgts and Inspectors act very professionally doing a very difficult job. They must also be "independent" of any investigation.
jonsp said:
f course I appreciate when your colleagues bring somebody in you would tend to believe they had acted correctly and authorise detention unless you had a (very) good reason not to. As you say 1 in thousands..
Beyond that, are you saying that if the custody sergeant authorised detention the arrest is automatically lawful and the DP has no legitimate grounds for complaint?
The Custody Officer / Sgt role is specifically defined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and amongst the responsibility is the care and welfare of detained persons.Beyond that, are you saying that if the custody sergeant authorised detention the arrest is automatically lawful and the DP has no legitimate grounds for complaint?
The Custody Sgt is invariably not present at the scene of the arrest and has to rely upon information given to them by the arresting officer as to tge circumstances of the arrest and "enquire into them"
See my earlier post.
Nothing is "automatic" each case is different. If the Custody Sgt has acted diligently and professionally then they must be satisfied the arrest was lawful before authorising continued detention.
BUT there are exceptions to every rule for example
1) an arresting officer or a witness can make a genuine mistake in a fast moving situation, which when analysed in the cold light of day becomes apparent, that might be unlawful arrest if the officers acted without "reasonable cause to belive"
2) an arresting officer can mislead the Custody Sgt as to the circumstances of the arrest or an investigation shows that there were no reasonable grounds to arrest"
Arrest is the process of "taking a persons liberty to answer al alledged offence" ...arrested person to be brought before a Custody Sgt as soon as pratcicable
Detention is what the Custody Sgt authoritses (or not) when the detained person is brought before him.
Maybe easier to prove "unlawful arrest" as its a decision made often in a split second than ut is to prove "unlawful detention" when the Custody Sgt has had time to consider and enquire into the circumstances of the arrest
Det
Edited by edthefed on Monday 18th December 16:39
Tam_Mullen said:
If it was me I would just move on with my life.
What loss did he suffer that he's looking to be compensated for?
This.What loss did he suffer that he's looking to be compensated for?
There are a lot of whingers around, I found them in my last job. Glad to be rid of them.
The bigger the rule book (staff handbook) the worse the situation is.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff