Discussion
PoD
What Carrotchomper said is right - basically if Police are lawfully on premises, they can seize anything (except usually items subject to legal privilege) which may be evidence of an offence.
If it's a public place, the same applies - as well as PACE, there is also a Common Law power of seizure.
What Carrotchomper said is right - basically if Police are lawfully on premises, they can seize anything (except usually items subject to legal privilege) which may be evidence of an offence.
If it's a public place, the same applies - as well as PACE, there is also a Common Law power of seizure.
Sec 19 of PACE relates to seizure resulting from evidence found on premises not evidence in a public place. It is common law that deals with evidence in a public place.
Under Sec 19 (on premises) Police can seize any property that is evidence, irrespective of who it is owned by (legal privilege etc exceptions).
Whenever a serious crime occurs in a public place, the scene is cordoned off and the public prevented from using that area whilst a detailed examination takes place, even though there is no statutory power which actually allows the preservation of a crime scene (except for terrorism - section 33 Terrorism Act 2000). It is the duty of the police to closely examine the crime scene and that would include any privately owned items found there . If the owner of such property tried to prevent such an examination it is likely he/she would be obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.
In respect of property owned by another (otherwise unconnected with the offence) the stated case often cited is Ghani v Jones 1970.
What that basically gives rise to is, that in order to justify the taking of an article where no one had been arrested or charged -
(1) the police must have reasonable grounds for believing that a serious crime had been committed;
(2) they must have reasonable grounds for believing that the article was either the fruit of the crime or the instrument by which it was committed or was material evidence to prove its commission;
(3) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person in possession of the article had committed the crime or was implicated in it;
(4) the police must not keep the article or prevent its removal for any longer than was reasonably necessary to complete their investigations or preserve it for evidence; and
(5) the lawfulness of the conduct of the police must be judged at the time and not by what happened afterwards.
Under Sec 19 (on premises) Police can seize any property that is evidence, irrespective of who it is owned by (legal privilege etc exceptions).
Whenever a serious crime occurs in a public place, the scene is cordoned off and the public prevented from using that area whilst a detailed examination takes place, even though there is no statutory power which actually allows the preservation of a crime scene (except for terrorism - section 33 Terrorism Act 2000). It is the duty of the police to closely examine the crime scene and that would include any privately owned items found there . If the owner of such property tried to prevent such an examination it is likely he/she would be obstructing the police in the execution of their duty.
In respect of property owned by another (otherwise unconnected with the offence) the stated case often cited is Ghani v Jones 1970.
What that basically gives rise to is, that in order to justify the taking of an article where no one had been arrested or charged -
(1) the police must have reasonable grounds for believing that a serious crime had been committed;
(2) they must have reasonable grounds for believing that the article was either the fruit of the crime or the instrument by which it was committed or was material evidence to prove its commission;
(3) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person in possession of the article had committed the crime or was implicated in it;
(4) the police must not keep the article or prevent its removal for any longer than was reasonably necessary to complete their investigations or preserve it for evidence; and
(5) the lawfulness of the conduct of the police must be judged at the time and not by what happened afterwards.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 29th October 22:40
Marf said:
Parrot of Doom said:
Fascinating insight, but can you help with the question?
No insight, just a statement mate based on confusion as to why you would refuse to hand over video evidence of a crime being comitted.Edited by Marf on Monday 29th October 22:43
Marf said:
OK, so hypothetically, why wouldnt you just hand it over? He said there are numerous reasons. I'd like to hear them, thats all 
It was his friend that was arrested? The bobby was a bit "enthusiastic" with the arrest and PoD thought that the evidence would "disappear" if he handed it over?Marf said:
OK, so hypothetically, why wouldnt you just hand it over? He said there are numerous reasons. I'd like to hear them, thats all
Its a hypothetical situation, hasn't happened to me nor is it likely to anytime soon, but I just wanted to know what my rights were.As for reasons? Time constraints (previously recorded footage on same tape going out for news item same day), possible corruption within police, cost (some cameras use solid state recording and the memory cards are extremely expensive), privacy (exclusive footage - not necessarily the crime - on same tape, police use local broadcast facility house to copy, story leaks out to press). Etc.
Another reason: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f5c_1193345495
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Monday 29th October 23:23
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff