[Leo Jason-Lloyd, Leonard Jason-Lloyd] an Introduc(BookSee.org)

AN INTRODUCTIONTO POLICING AND

POLICE POWERS

CavendishPublishing

Limited

London Sydney

AN INTRODUCTIONTO POLICING AND

POLICE POWERS

CavendishPublishing

Limited

London Sydney

Leonard Jason-LloydSenior Lecturer in Law, Coventry University

First published in Great Britain 2000 by Cavendish Publishing Limited,The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United KingdomTelephone: +44 (0) 20 7278 8000 Facsimile: +44 (0) 20 7278 8080E-mail: [email protected] our Home Page on http://www.cavendishpublishing.com

Jason-Lloyd, Leonard 2000

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under theterms of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of alicence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road,London W1P 9HE, UK, without the permission in writing of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Jason-Lloyd, LeonardAn introduction to policing and police powers1 PoliceGreat Britain 2 Police powerGreat BritainI Title345.4'1'052

ISBN 1 85941 554 7

Printed and bound in Great Britain

vPREFACE

In recent years, general interest in the study of policing and the application ofpolice powers has increased substantially. As far as academic activity isconcerned, the study of police powers and certain aspects of the nature ofpolicing have formed part of constitutional law courses for many years and,more recently, as a major component in the study of civil liberties. The mostrecent development has been their inclusion within criminal justice studies.

This book has been written with the newcomer in mind, including thosewith little or no legal knowledge who need to understand policing and policepowers as part of wider study. It is not intended to provide an exhaustivetreatise on this subject, since this service is provided for in other works whichare cited in the appropriate footnotes and constitute recommended furtherreading on particular topics. This publication is therefore focused on the keyissues affecting the exercise of police powers which are most likely to be ofinterest to students.

This book is designed for complete beginners as well as those with someknowledge of policing and police powers, in an endeavour to help bring themas close to degree level on the subject as they are able to reach. It is also intendedthat this book will be of use to practitioners, whether in the legal professionor otherwise, who need a quick, but comprehensive, grasp of some of themost important aspects of this subject. The principal aim of this work is tomake this study as accessible as possible to a wide range of students andpractitioners, and to act as a stepping stone to further in-depth study,particularly to higher degree level. A further aim is to provide an up to datetextbook on the most widely used police powers, which has become necessaryin view of extensive changes in the law since the mid-1990s.

In order to facilitate a better understanding of the subject and the waythat it has evolved, the relevant statutory and other provisions have beenreproduced at the appropriate stages where their wording is self-explanatory,as well as case law applicable to the points in question. However, it is notintended to submerge the reader in too many cases, but rather to cite the mostimportant and relevant case law applicable to the key areas of the subject.Charts and diagrams have also been included in order to facilitate betterunderstanding of the more complex issues arising from this study.

My thanks go to Jo Reddy, Managing Editor at Cavendish Publishing, forher help and support, and to Steve Foster at Coventry University for hisappraisal of the initial draft of the final chapter of this book. Special thanksare extended to my wife, Usha, for her unfailing patience and support whichis always prominently displayed whenever I embark upon any major project.I have endeavoured to state the law as at 31 March 2000, although severalrecent legal developments have been added at the proof-reading stage.

Crown copyright is reproduced with the permission of the Controller ofHer Majestys Stationery Office.

Leonard Jason-LloydAugust 2000

vii

CONTENTS

Preface vTable of Cases xiiiTable of Statutes xixTable of Statutory Instruments xxvTable of Conventions xxviiIntroduction xxix

1 THE DEVELOPMENT AND FOUNDATIONS OFMODERN POLICING 1

INTRODUCTION 1A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 2THE STRUCTURE OF POLICING IN ENGLAND AND WALES 3

The police authorities 4Further moves towards centralised control? 6Policing in London 7

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND GENERAL LEGAL STATUSOF THE POLICE 8Chief constables 10The Home Secretary and the police 11The Inspectorate of Constabulary 13General operational policing in England and Wales 14The special constabulary 19

2 POLICE POWERS OF STOP AND SEARCH 21INTRODUCTION 21THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 22THE CODES OF PRACTICE 24POWERS OF STOP AND SEARCH UNDER PACE 24

Reasonable grounds to suspect (or reasonable suspicion) 26Stolen and prohibited articles 29Definition of public place 31Definition of a vehicle 32

SEARCH PROCEDURE 32SEARCHING OF PERSONS 32

Strip searches 34Intimate searches 35

VEHICLES 35Moving vehicles 35Unattended vehicles 36Road blocks 36

An Introduction to Policing and Police Powers

viii

FURTHER SEARCH PROCEDURES 37The use of force 37The completion of the search procedure 38Informal police procedures 38Other stop and search powers 41

MORE RECENT POWERS TO STOP AND SEARCHVEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS 41Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 41Sections 13A and 13B of the Prevention of Terrorism

(Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 46Powers to stop and search for drugs 49General points 51

SOME MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF STOP AND SEARCH 51Powers to search unaccompanied goods 51Police cordons 52Raves and prohibited assemblies 54

3 POLICE POWERS OF ARREST 57DEFINITION OF ARREST 57

An overview of police powers of arrest 57Arrests without warrant 58Arrestable offences 59Section 24(4) of PACE 65Section 24(5) and (6) of PACE 65Section 24(7) of PACE 66Serious arrestable offences 67General arrest conditions 68Common law power to arrest for a breach of the peace 71

ARREST PROCEDURE 73Information that must be given on arrest 73The act of legal restraint 74The caution 75Voluntary attendance at a police station 75Arrests made elsewhere than at police stations 76Arrest for one or more further offences 77Searches on arrest 78Police discretion in making arrests 79Unlawful arrests 79Arrests with warrant 80Cross-border enforcement 81

POWERS UNDER THE CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 82Local child curfews 83Power to remove truants 84

Contents

ix

ARREST POWER UNDER S 3(4) OF THE THEFT ACT 1978 ANDSIMILAR POWERS 85

4 POLICE POWERS OF ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PREMISES 87INTRODUCTION 87

Definition of premises 88ENTRY AND SEARCH BY WARRANT 89

Meaning of items subject to legal privilege 89Meaning of excluded material 91Meaning of special procedure material 93General search provisions 94Safeguards regarding applications for search warrants 95The execution of search warrants 97

ENTRY AND SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT 101Introduction 101Section 17 of PACEentry for purpose of arrest, etc 102Section 18 of PACEentry and search after arrest 104Section 32 of PACEsearch upon arrest 105Notice of powers and rights 105Consensual entry and search of premises 106Powers of entry and search in the prevention of terrorism 107Police powers of entry and search of school premises 108General provisions under Code B 110Common law power of entry to prevent or deal with

a breach of the peace 112CLANDESTINE POWERS OF ENTRY INTO PREMISES 112

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 116

5 THE SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE AND DUTIES OF DISCLOSURE 117POLICE POWERS OF SEIZURE 117

Introduction 117General powers of seizure under PACE, other statutes

and the common law 117Specific powers of seizure under PACE 118Information held on computer 118Access to and the copying of seized articles 119Retention of articles seized 119Seizure of suspected drug trafficking cash 120

SPECIFIC POWERS OF SEIZURE UNDER OTHER STATUTES 121The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 121The Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996 121


x

The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 122The Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 122

POLICE DUTIES OF DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE 122

6 POLICE POWERS OF DETENTION 125INTRODUCTION 125

Designated police stations 125The custody officer 125

THE FIRST STAGES AT THE POLICE STATION 129The custody record 129

THE INITIAL AND CONTINUING THREE RIGHTS OFARRESTED PERSONS 130Legal advice 131Notification to another of a persons detention 133Unco-operative detainees 134General search provisions 135Strip searches 135Intimate searches 136

DETENTION WITHOUT CHARGE 138Introduction 138Time limits 138Periodic reviews of detention 139Extensions to normal detention periods 142Delay in access to legal advice and notification of arrest

to another 143Warrants of further detention by magistrates 146Extended powers of detention by magistrates 148Police detention under prevention of terrorism legislation 148

SAFEGUARDS REGARDING VULNERABLE PERSONS 149General 149Custody records 151Initial action 152

THE CHARGING OF SUSPECTS AND SUBSEQUENTDETENTION 154Introduction 154Release or detention after charge? 155An additional ground for detaining juveniles 156The exception to the above rules 157Police bail in general 158Questioning after charge 158The duty to take a charged person before a court 159

Contents

xi

CAUTIONING 159Aims 160Decision to caution 160Public interest considerations 160Views of the victim 160Administration of a caution 161Recording cautions 161The reprimand and warning scheme for juveniles 161The drug arrest referral scheme 162

7 THE QUESTIONING AND GENERAL TREATMENT OFDETAINED PERSONS 165

INTRODUCTION 165GENERAL CONDITIONS OF DETENTION 165THE TREATMENT OF DETAINED PERSONS 166

The administering of cautions to suspects 168THE GENERAL CONDUCT OF POLICE INTERVIEWS 170

Interviews at police stations 174The role of the solicitor during interviews 176Tape recorded interviews 177

CONFESSIONS 182Special protection for the mentally handicapped 184

IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES 185General safeguards 185Identification parades 186Group identification 190Video film identification 191Confrontation 193Fingerprinting 194Photographs 196

TAKING FORENSIC SAMPLES FROM SUSPECTS 198Introduction 198Intimate samples 198Non-intimate samples 200Provisions regarding both intimate and non-intimate samples 202Proposed new powers to take samples 202

8 COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE 205INTRODUCTION 205THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPLAINTS SYSTEM 205THE SCOPE OF COMPLAINTS 206PRELIMINARY ACTION AND THE APPROPRIATE

AUTHORITY 207


xii

COMPLAINTS AGAINST SENIOR OFFICERS 208COMPLAINTS AGAINST OTHER RANKS: STANDARD

PROCEDURE 208REFERENCES TO THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY 209THE POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY 209INFORMAL RESOLUTION 209COMPLAINTS SUPERVISED BY THE PCA 210REPORTS ON INVESTIGATIONS 211STEPS TO BE TAKEN AFTER INVESTIGATION 211

Senior officers 211Standard procedure (non-senior officers) 212

POWERS OF THE PCA REGARDING DISCIPLINARYPROCEEDINGS 212

THE POLICE APPEALS TRIBUNAL 213Home Office News Release (115/99, 31 March 1999) 213

OTHER FORMS OF REDRESS 217

9 POLICING AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 221INTRODUCTION 221THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 221HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE CONVENTION 222CONCLUSION 230

Bibliography 231Index 235

xiii

TABLE OF CASES

AG for New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd[1955] 1 All ER 846; [1955] AC 457 11

Albert v Lavin [1982] AC 546; [1981] 1 All ER 628 71Aldersonv Booth [1969] 2 All ER 271 74Andronicou and Constantinou

v Cyprus [1997] 25 EHRR 491 224, 225Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury

Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; [1947] 2 All ER 680 79

Bentley v Brudzinski [1982] Cr App R 217 40Black v DPP (1995) unreported, Case No CO 87795 28Bonzi v Switzerland [1978] 12 D & R 185 228Brazil v Chief Constable of Surrey

[1983] 3 All ER 537; [1983] Crim LR 483 135

Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573; [1947] 1 All ER 567 73, 84Christie v UK [1994] 78-A DR 119 229Cockcroft v Smith [1705] 2 Salk 642 67Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 40, 219Cowan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

(1999) The Times, 31 August 117

D v DPP (1998) The Times, 7 August 188DSouza v DPP [1992] 4 All ER 545 103, 219Dhesi v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police

(2000) The Times, 9 May 74Donnelly v Jackman [1970] 1 WLR 562 40DPP v Cornish (1997) The Times, 27 January, QBD 184DPP v L and S (1998) unreported, Case No CO/3682/98 80DPP v Morris (1990) unreported, 8 October, DC 151

Edwards v DPP (1993) 97 Cr App R 301 74Evans v Hughes [1972] 136 JP 725; [1972] 3 All ER 412 30

Fisher v Oldham Corporation [1930] 2 KB 364;[1930] All ER 96 11

H and M v DPP [1997] Crim LR 653 151Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd

[1987] 2 All ER 838 11


xiv

Holgate-Mohammed v Duke [1984] 1 All ER 1054, HL 79Houghton v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester

(1987) 84 Cr App R 319, CA 30Huvig v France [1990] 12 EHRR 528 229

Kenlin v Gardiner [1967] 2 QB 510; [1966] 3 All ER 931 40Khan v UK (1999) The Times, 2 November 229Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

[1990] 3 All ER 246, CA 166Kruslin v France [1990] 12 EHRR 547 229

Lamb v DPP [1990] Crim LR 58 72Li Shu-Ling v R [1989] AC 270 182Lodwick v Saunders [1985] 1 All ER 577 36

McCann v UK [1995] 21 EHRR 97 22325McFeeley v UK [1980] Application No 8317/78; (1980) 3 EHRR 161 226McLeod v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

[1994] 4 All ER 553 72McLeod v UK [1997] Application No 72/1997/856/1065 72, 228, 229Mepstead v DPP [1996] Crim LR 111 40Moss v McLachlan [1985] 149 JP 167 37, 72

Nicholas v DPP [1987] Crim LR 474 70

Osman v DPP [1999] 163 JP 725 45

Palmer v Bugler (1988) The Times, 28 November 88Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 225Parry v DPP (1998) unreported, Case No CO/2294/98 187, 188

R v Alladice (1988) 87 Cr App R380; [1988] Crim LR 608 145R v Aspinall [1999] 2 Cr App R 115 150, 152R v Badham [1987] Crim LR 202 78, 105R v Bailey (1995) The Times, 26 January, CA 184R v Barry (1991) 95 Cr App R 384, CA 183R v Beckford [1991] Crim LR 918 78R v Bristol Crown Court ex p Bristol Press and Picture

Agency Ltd [1987] Crim LR 329 92, 93

Table of Cases

xv

R v Brosch [1988] Crim LR 743 65R v Central Criminal Court ex p Francis and Francis

[1989] AC 346; [1988] 1 All ER 677 90R v Chesterfield Justices ex p Bramley

[1999] 2 WLR 409; [2000] 1 All ER 411 91, 100, 119R v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset

ex p Robinson [1989] 1 WLR 793; [1989] 2 All ER 15 133R v Chief Constable of Lancashire ex p Parker and Magrath

[1993] Crim LR 204; [1993] 2 All ER 56 98R v Chief Constable of Sussex ex p International Traders

Ferry Ltd [1997] 2 All ER 65 11R v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

ex p Blackburn (No 1) [1968] 2 QB 118 10, 11R v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

ex p Blackburn (No 3) [1973] 1 All ER 324 11R v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

ex p Free Tibet Campaign and Others(2000) unreported, Case No CO/129/2000 11

R v Davison [1988] Crim LR 442 183R v Deenik [1992] Crim LR 578 189R v Everett [1988] Crim LR 826 185R v Fennelley [1989] Crim LR 142 51, 74, 80, 182, 217R v Forbes (1999) unreported, Case No 98/6188/Z2 187R v Franklin [1994] The Times, 16 June, CA 177R v Fulling (1987) 85 Cr App R 136 182R v Grieve (1996) unreported, 1 August, CA 183R v Guildhall Magistrates Court

ex p Primlaks Holdings Co [1989] 2 WLR 841 91R v Gummerson and Steadman

(1998) unreported, Case No 9708492/W2 188R v Ham (1995) unreported, Case No 95/2020/W3 185R v Hersey [1997] Crim LR 281 (1998) 188R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383 [1982] QB 416 71R v Hutton [1998] Crim LR 74 (1999) 188R v Jasper (1994) unreported, Case No 93/6043/X5 183R v Jones and Nelson (1999) The Times, 21 April 193R v Kelbie [1996] Crim LR 802 71R v Khan [1995] QB 27; [1994] 4 All ER 426 112R v Lamont [1989] Crim LR 813, CA 184


xvi

R v Lewis (1995) unreported, 7 November, CA 184R v Linehan (1999) unreported, Case No 751/99, QBD 99R v Longman [1988] Crim LR 534 99R v Mason [1987] 3 All ER 48 183R v McCarthy [1996] Crim LR 818 80R v Morse and Others [1991] Crim LR 195 150R v Nathaniel [1995] 159 JP 419, CA 202R v Paris, Abdullahi and Miller

(1993) 97 Cr App R 99, CA 182R v Peacock [1973] Crim LR 639, CA 30R v Popat (No 2) [1999] Crim LR 54 187R v Popat [1998] 2 Cr App R 208, CA; [1998] Crim LR 825 187R v Reading Justices ex p South West Meats Ltd

[1992] Crim LR 672; [1991] The Times, 18 November 97, 100R v Ryan [1992] Crim LR 187 193R v Samuel (1987) 87 Cr App R 232 144, 145R v Secretary of State for the Home Department

ex p Northumbria Police Authority [1988] All ER 556 13R v Self [1992] 1 WLR 657; [1992] 3 All ER 746 65R v Silcott, Braithwaite and Raghip

(1991) The Times, 9 December, CA 185R v Slough Justices ex p Stirling [1987] Crim LR 576 147R v South Western Magistrates Court and Metropolitan

Police Commissioner ex p Cofie [1996] 161 JP 69, QBD 96R v Vernon [1988] Crim LR 445 132R v Weeks [1995] Crim LR 52 183R v Weir (2000) 164 JP 454, CA 202Rice v Connolley [1966] 2 QB 414 28, 39Ricketts v Cox (1982) 74 Cr App R 298; [1982] Crim LR 184 40Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 12Rixon and Others v Chief Constable of Kent

(2000) The Times, 11 April 132, 177Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire

(1999) unreported, Case No CCRTF 98/0146/CMS2, CA 142Roques v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

(1997) 23 Legal Action 131

Table of Cases

xvii

Samuels v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis(1999) unreported, Case No CCRTF 98/0410/2, CA 28

Selmouni v France [1999] Application No 00025803/94 225Simpson v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

(1991) The Times, 7 March 79Steel v UK [1998] Crim LR 893 228Stewart v UK [1984] 38 DR 162 224

Thomas v Sawkins [1935] 2 KB 249; [1935] All ER 655 71

xix

Asylum and ImmigrationAppeals Act 1993s 3(5) 126, 178

Aviation Security Act 1982s 13 87, 101

Bail Act 1976 58, 157s 6 158

Bankers Books EvidenceAct 1879 93

Betting, Gaming and LotteriesAct 1963 117

Biological Weapons Act 1974 117

Children Act 1989 150Children and Young Persons

Act 1933s 53 102

Children and Young PersonsAct 1969 58s 23(1) 102

Companies Act 1985 39Confiscation of Alcohol

(Young Persons) Act 1997 121, 122Copyright, Designs and

Patents Act 1988 144Crime and Disorder

Act 1998 42ss 14, 15 82, 83s 16 82, 84s 25 41, 42, 44, 121ss 26, 27 42s 32(1)(a) 62s 36 60, 223s 56 157s 65 161, 162, 196s 66 162

Criminal Attempts Act 1981ss 1(4), 2 62

Criminal Justice Act 1967s 91 85

Criminal Justice Act 1987 39

s 2(4) 87Criminal Justice Act 1988 154

Pt VI 144s 37 62s 99 143, 144s 139 30s 139(a)(1), (2), (1) 61s 142 87Sched 4 144Sched 15, para 98 62

Criminal Justice (InternationalCo-operation) Act 1990 117

Criminal Justice andPublic Order Act 1994 4148, 58,

64, 71, 79,121, 198,215, 228

Pt III 171s 25 157s 27 155ss 36, 37 169, 180s 56 59, 157s 58(2) 198s 59 137, 198s 59(2) 78s 60 28, 4143, 45,

46, 48, 49, 64,121, 228

s 60(4), (4A) 44s 60(4A)(b) 121s 60(5) 44s 60(8) 45s 60(8)(b) 62ss 61, 62, 64(4) 121ss 65, 71 54, 55s 76 102s 81 28, 46, 47s 136 81ss 137, 139(1), (5), 140 82s 141 6ss 166, 167 61Sched 3, para 3 156

TABLE OF STATUTES


xx

Criminal Law Act 1967s 3 64, 225s 3(1) 66, 67, 74, 99

Criminal Law Act 1977 58ss 68, 10 102

Criminal Procedure andInvestigations Act 1996 122, 123Pts I, II 122

Crossbows Act 1987s 4 41

Customs and ExciseManagement Act 1979 61, 64

Drug TraffickingAct 1994 68, 117, 143Pt II 120

Drug Trafficking OffencesAct 1986 154s 32 143

Explosives Act 1875s 73 90

Financial Services Act 1986 117Firearms Act 1968

s 47 22, 41Football Offences Act 1991 61, 64Football Spectators Act 1989

s 16(4) 62

Greater London AuthorityAct 1999 11ss 31025 7Sched 27, para 83 1Sched 27, para 104 12

Human Rights Act 1998 221, 222, 224, 230

Sched 1 222

Immigration Act 1971 178, 194

Immigration and AsylumAct 1999s 141 126, 178

Interception ofCommunicationsAct 1985 116, 229

Knives Act 1997 42, 108s 8 41, 42, 46

Licensing Act 1902s 1 85

Magistrates CourtsAct 1980 80, 81ss 1, 13 81s 33 60s 117 81

Mental Health Act 1983 58, 150s 135 126s 136 126, 141,

153, 167Metropolitan Police

Act 1829 2, 3, 19Metropolitan Police

Act 1839s 66 21

Mineral Workings Act 1971s 1 88

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 28, 50,117, 136,168, 203

s 23 22, 41, 49s 23(1) 87, 94, 101s 23(2) 50s 23(3) 87, 99s 23(4)(a) 28

Obscene Publications Act 1959 89s 2 61

Table of Statutes

xxi

Offensive WeaponsAct 1996 31, 41, 102,

10810, 121, 122ss 1, 4 108

Official Secrets Act 1911s 1 179s 9(2) 90

Official Secrets Act 1920 61, 64Official Secrets Act 1989 61, 64

s 8(1), (4), (5) 61

Performing Animals(Regulation) Act 1925s 2 101

Police Act 1964 4, 1013ss 4, 5 13s 41 41

Police Act 1976 205Police Act 1996 46, 912, 205

s 2 114s 11 12ss 23, 24 6s 32 4ss 37, 38, 42 12s 65 206, 207s 66 209s 67 207, 208s 68 208s 68(2) 209s 69 208s 69(3) 209s 70 208, 209s 71 209, 210s 72 210ss 73, 74 211ss 75, 76 212ss 77, 78 206s 79 209s 85 213s 88 9s 89(1), (2) 219s 98 6

Sched 4 1Sched 5 209Sched 6 213

Police Act 1997 6, 88, 112, 113Pt I 6Pt II 6Pt III 112, 116Pt IV 113Pt V 196s 91 115s 92 113s 93 113, 114s 93(2) 114s 93(2)(a), (b) 115s 93(4) 114s 94 113, 114s 96 7, 115s 97 115s 101 116s 103 115Sched 7 115

Police and CriminalEvidence Act 1984 21, 22, 24,

26, 28, 29,32, 41, 43,4951, 58,59, 64, 67,71, 75, 80,

87, 88, 9294,101, 105, 112,

113, 11720,129, 132, 139,143, 149, 198,

205, 209, 217,226, 228

Pts IIX 22, 205Pt II 229Pt V 24Pt VI 24, 144s 1 24, 2631, 35,

38, 39, 40,41, 4345, 48,

55, 118, 122


xxii

s 1(6) 38s 2 44, 45, 226s 2(1), (2) 32s 2(3), (4) 33s 2(6) 36s 2(9)(a) 33s 2(9)(b) 35s 3 44, 45s 3(1)(5), (7) 38s 3(8) 36s 3(9) 36, 38s 4 22, 36s 8 87, 89,

118, 119s 8(1) 100s 8(2) 120s 9 93, 94s 10 89s 10(2) 89, 90ss 11, 12 91s 14 93, 141s 15 94, 95, 99s 15(1), (2)(a), (b) 96s 15(2)(c) 96, 100s 15(3)(6)(a) 96s 15(6)(b) 96, 100ss 15(7), (8) 96s 16 94, 96, 97, 99s 16(1)(4) 97s 16(5)(a)(c) 98s 16(6), (a), (b), (7) 98s 16(8) 99, 100s 16(9) 111s 16(9)(b) 100s 16(10) 111s 17 71, 78, 87,

88, 99, 10106,109, 117

s 17(1)(ca), (cb), (d) 102, 103s 17(1)(e), (2) 104s 17(6) 72, 104s 18 78, 87, 99,

101, 104, 105,106, 109, 117,118, 119, 135

s 18(2) 117s 19 117, 119, 120s 19(2) 117s 19(4) 118s 19(2)(iii), (iv) 120s 19(6) 100ss 21, 22 119s 23, (a)(c) 88s 24 59, 64, 108s 24(1) 59s 24(1)(a) 60s 24(1)(b) 60, 61s 24(2) 42, 59,

60, 62, 63s 24(2)(d), (e), (h), (j) 62s 24(2)(n), (o), (q), (r) 62s 24(3) 59, 62s 24(3)(b) 62s 24(4) 59, 63, 65s 24(4)(a), (b) 65s 24(5) 59, 63, 65s 24(5)(a) 65s 24(5)(b) 65, 66s 24(6) 59, 63, 65, 66s 24(7) 59, 63, 66s 25 45, 59, 68, 69,

70, 77, 82, 86s 25(3) 69, 70s 25(3)(d), (5) 70s 26(1) 86s 27 58, 19496, 197s 27(1) 58s 27(3) 59s 27(4A) 196s 28 73s 28(1), (2) 73s 28(3) 73, 81s 28(4), (5) 73s 29 75

Table of Statutes

xxiii

s 30 125s 30(1) 76s 30(1)(b) 226s 30(3)(6) 77s 30(7) 70, 77s 30(8), (9) 77s 30(10), (11) 76s 31 77s 32 78, 82, 87,

99, 101, 105,106, 109, 117,

118, 135s 32(3), (4) 78s 34(1)(5) 126, 129s 35 76, 125s 36(3), (4), (7) 125s 36(8)(10) 126s 37 130s 37(7) 154s 38 155, 156, 203s 38(1)(b)(ii) 156s 39(1), (2), (6) 126s 40 139s 41 138s 42 142s 43 142, 146, 147s 43(7) 147s 44 142, 148s 46 159s 46A 138s 54 118, 135s 55 118, 135,

136, 137s 56 143, 144, 154s 58 131, 143, 144,

145, 147, 154s 58(14)(18) 131s 60 24, 177s 61 194, 195s 62 198, 199s 62(1A) 201s 62(10) 202

s 63 198s 63A 194, 201s 63A(7) 59s 64 194, 198, 202s 65 198ss 66, 67 24s 76 217s 76(2) 184s 76(2)(a) 182s 76(2)(b) 182, 183s 76(8) 183s 77 184s 77(3) 184, 185s 78 79, 80, 118, 132,

182, 183, 217s 82(1) 182s 106 7s 107 145s 116 59, 64, 67, 68s 117 37, 44, 67,

74, 99, 135,195, 200

Sched 1 93, 94, 97, 118, 119Sched 2 58, 86Sched 5 64, 68

Police and MagistratesCourts Act 1994 205Pt I 4

Prevention of Crime Act 1953s 1 30s 1(1) 61

Prevention of Offences Act 1851s 11 85

Prevention of Terrorism(Temporary Provisions)Act 1989 41, 4649, 51,

54, 64, 68,94, 107, 141,

146, 149,179, 194

s 13A 43, 4649, 51s 13B 43, 4649, 51


xxiv

s 14, (4), (5) 148s 16C 52Sched 5 59Sched 6A 52Sched 7 94, 95, 97

Prevention of Terrorism(Additional Powers)Act 1996 49, 51, 52,

88, 102, 107,108, 121

s 1 46, 47, 107s 2 107, 108, 121s 3(1) 51, 107s 4 52, 107, 121Sched 6A 121

Prison Act 1952 58Prisoners (Return to

Custody) Act 1995 103Protection of Children

Act 1978s 1 61

Protection from HarassmentAct 1997 62

Public Order Act 1936 58s 1 58, 102s 7(3) 58

Public Order Act 1986 58, 71s 3 58s 3(6) 58s 4 102s 19 61s 32(3) 62

Public Stores Act 1875s 6 41

Regulation of InvestigatoryPowers Act 2000 116, 229

Road Traffic Act 1988 169, 198ss 4(7), 6(6) 88s 163 35, 36s 169 39

Sexual Offences Act 1956 64ss 22, 23 61s 41 85

Special Constables Act 1831 19Sporting Events (Control of

Alcohol, etc) Act 1985 58s 7 41

Terrorism Act 2000 47, 48, 54,64, 121, 149

Theatres Act 1968s 15(3) 101

Theft Act 1968 64, 117, 203s 12(1) 61, 62s 25(1) 61s 26 87

Theft Act 1978s 3 85, 86s 3(4) 59, 85

Trade Marks Act 1994 144

xxv

Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/730) 212, 213, 215reg 5 208

Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1999(SI 1999/731) 211reg 5 20

Police (Complaints) (Informal Resolution) Regulations 1985(SI 1985/671) 209, 210

Police Appeals Tribunal Rules 1999 (SI 1999/818) 212, 213

TABLE OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

xxvii

TABLE OF CONVENTIONS

The European Conventionon Human Rightsand FundamentalFreedoms 1951 221, 222, 224,

229, 230Art 2 22325Art 2(2), (a)(c) 224Art 3 225, 226, 228Art 5 22528Art 5(1)(b) 228

Art 5(1)(c) 227, 228Art 5(4), (5) 228Art 6 113, 228, 229Art 6(1) 113Art 6(2), (3)(b), (c) 228Art 8 113, 226, 229, 230Art 10 228Art 13 113, 229Protocol 6 223Protocol 11 222

xxix

INTRODUCTION

One of the main reasons why so much interest has been generated in the studyof police powers in modern times is that increasing numbers of the widerpopulace are beginning to question the exercise of such authority. Indeed, somego further and actually challenge the legitimacy of such powers and the waythey are exercised. This was done in a particularly violent manner during the1980s, when it became evident, through a spate of serious disorder in this country,that certain sections of the public were seriously questioning the manner andform in which some police powers were being employed. However, concernsregarding policing in general have not, by any means, been confined to publicprotest alone. For instance, in 1978, the Royal Commission on CriminalProcedure1 was convened to examine the exercise of police powers, withparticular reference to the investigation of crime and the rights of suspects.This body consisted of 15 members, which included its chairman, Sir CyrilPhilips, and also a judge, two police officers, a Queens Counsel, a stipendiarymagistrate, a defence lawyer and several lay magistrates, as well as otherlaypersons.2 Three years later, the Commission published its findings, whichnot only concerned the subject of police powers, but also addressed the issue ofan independent system for conducting criminal prosecutions. In short, theformer resulted in the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984and the latter resulted in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 being enacted,which, inter alia, led to the institution of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Largely in response to concerns regarding a spate of miscarriage of justicecases in previous years, another Royal Commission was instituted. In 1991,under the leadership of Lord Runciman, the Royal Commission on CriminalJustice3 began to examine this issue, as well addressing wider concernsregarding the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in convicting theguilty and acquitting the innocent. Its findings were reported two years laterand a number of the Commissions recommendations were later enacted inthe Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Criminal Procedureand Investigations Act 1996. But these are certainly not the only statutes whichhave more recently affected police powers. For example, in 1996, two furtherActs were passed which significantly affected the police service. The first wasthe Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996 (see Chapters 2and 4) and the second was the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 (see Chapter 4).In 1997, the Knives Act was passed, and this was followed later in the sameyear by the passing of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997(see Chapter 5). The powers available to the police have been furtheraugmented by a number of provisions under the Crime and Disorder Act1998 (see Chapter 3) and all this is indicative of the rate at which police powers

1 Otherwise known as the Philips Royal Commission.2 Zander, M, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, 3rd edn, 1995, London: Sweet

Maxwell.3 Cm 2263, 1993, London: HMSO.


xxx

have been increased in recent years. It is partly because of this flood of recentenactments, together with a build up of relevant case law, that the publicationof this book has been necessitated.

It should be mentioned that, whilst the relevant Royal Commissions haveendeavoured to address wider and longer term concerns regarding policingin this country, specific incidents have also been the subject of judicial inquiriesinto the police, such as that conducted by Lord Scarman in the early 1980s inrespect of the Brixton disorders. In addition, other inquiries and investigationshave been commissioned, arising from concerns stemming from a number ofother issues. For example, an investigation by the Avon and Somerset Policeduring the mid-1980s into the conduct of the Greater Manchester Police duringa demonstration outside Manchester University Students Union. Also, in 1979,Sir Patrick McNee, who was then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police,commissioned a study of his force by the Policy Studies Institute, withparticular reference to community relations.4 Whilst many of these inquiriesand investigations have impacted mainly on internal rules governing policeconduct, some have motivated law reform to a certain extent. The most recentexample is the Macpherson Report, published in 1999, regarding the murderof Stephen Lawrence which, inter alia, has led to the Law Commissionproposing reform of the double jeopardy rule, which could enable criminalcases to be re-tried as a result of significant new evidence becoming available.

The most significant law reform, as far as substantive police powers areconcerned, was the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which accountsfor the bulk of this book. As mentioned above, this was primarily the result ofrecommendations made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure,necessitated by ongoing concerns regarding certain police powers and theway they were exercised. Much of this criticism ultimately stemmed from thelack of codification of such powers and the generally outdated mode in whichthey existed:

Before 1 January 1986, when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 cameinto effect, the law governing police powers for the investigation of crimewas unclear and antiquated. It had developed piecemeal since theestablishment of professional police forces in the 19th century. Parliamenthad added fitfully to the few common law principles, but there was no clearstatement of police powers. This varied and scant law was supplemented by:

(a) rules of guidance as to the admissibility of confessions provided by theLord Chief Justice (the Judges Rules);

(b) national administrative guidance in the form of Home Office Circulars(notably that attached to the Judges Rules); and

(c) local administrative guidance, in the shape of standing orders issuedwithin each police force.

4 Emsley, C, The English Police: A Political and Social History, 2nd edn, 1996, London:Longman.

Introduction

xxxi

The result was patchy legal obligations and powers for the police andlocal variations in powers (for example, some police forces had widestop and search powers, whereas others were tied to a few narrownational powers). New and heavier pressures on the police and morecritical public opinion demanded that the powers of the police be placedon a modern statutory footing.5

On analysis, perhaps a fundamental cause of this state of affairs was that themodern police service at that time was based, to a significant extent, on certainlaws, practices and procedures that were often rooted in the Victorian originsof this law enforcement body. During a debate on this issue during the 1980s,one media commentator referred to the police service as The Bow StreetRunners with cars and radios, which possibly encapsulates this argument inthose few words.

How did the modern police service develop? What is the current structureof the police service in modern times? What is the general legal andconstitutional status of a police officer? These questions will be addressed inthe following chapter.

5 Lidstone, K and Palmer, C, Bevan and Lidstones The Investigation of Crime: A Guideto Police Powers, 2nd edn, 1996, London: Butterworths.

1CHAPTER 1

THE DEVELOPMENT ANDFOUNDATIONS OF MODERN POLICING

INTRODUCTION

Iofdo solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and trulyserve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favouror affection, malice or ill will; and that I will, to the best of my power, causethe peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against thepersons and properties of Her Majestys subjects and that while I continue tohold the said office, I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, dischargeall the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

The above constitutes the solemn declaration or oath taken by all those newlyappointed to the office of constable within England and Wales, in accordancewith the wording under Sched 4 to the Police Act 1996. This is declared duringa ceremony known as the attestation, which takes place before a justice ofthe peace.1 On analysis, this oath provides an interesting indication as to theconstitutional status of a police officer in modern times and, in essence,describes the manner in which police powers should be exercised.

Compared to many policing systems abroad, the system in England andWales has a number of similarities and distinctions. Perhaps two of the greatestdistinctions are based upon the main principle of policing in this country and thebasic structure of our police service. With regard to the former, policing in thiscountry is still fundamentally based upon the principle or concept of policing byconsent. This means that the police service functions in society with the consentof the majority. This has great advantages compared to many foreign policingsystems, which do not enjoy this concept to the extent that it is still evident here.Among other things, this ensures a greater level of public co-operation with thepolice and has also enabled our police to avoid being fully and permanentlyequipped with firearms throughout the 20th century and, so far, into the presentmillennium. Although, in recent years, they have been equipped with a greaterrange of protective weaponry, such as extendable batons and CS gas spray, theseare not intended to be lethal in their effects if used correctly and, so far, we haveavoided a permanent para-military police force in this country.

1 Newly appointed constables in the Metropolitan Police have taken the attestationbefore either me Commissioner or an Assistant Commissioner who, technicallyat least, are also justices of the peace. This practice will discontinue as a result ofthe Greater London Authority Act 1999, Sched 27, para 83, which provides that allconstables in England and Wales will be attested before magistrates. It is thisstatute which contains the measures under which the new Metropolitan PoliceAuthority has been instituted.


2

A further distinction between foreign policing and our own domesticsystem is that this function in England and Wales is currently divided between43 individual police forces, whereas policing abroad, including Europe, isoften under more centralised control. In other words, we do not have a nationalpolice service, but a network of individual police forces, responsible forpolicing specified counties, areas or cities. During times of emergency, theseforces may be co-ordinated through a centralised mutual aid procedure, butsuch occasions are infrequent, one of the most well known in recent timesbeing the miners dispute during the winter of 198485, where police officersfrom many parts of the country were sent to key mining areas to reinforce thelocal police presence there.

A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The general concept of policing in this country is certainly not new; in fact,various forms of law enforcement which were in the nature of policing existedsince early Saxon times. Even the term constable originated as far back asthe Norman era.

Constables were also evident during the reign of the Tudors and Stuartsbut, following a period of apparent decline in the role of such constables, growingconcerns during the Georgian period regarding increasing crime and disorderled, ultimately, to the formation of the famous Bow Street Runners. A fragmentedsystem of policing gradually evolved in other parts of London but, in 1785, theLondon and Westminster Police Bill was introduced, designed to form a co-ordinated policing system for the capital. This was defeated due to fierceopposition and poor management of the Bill in its passage through Parliament,although a more limited version was successfully passed seven years later.2

However, crime and fears of public disorder continued to rise and, eventually,Sir Robert Peel introduced his famous Bill, which was enacted on 19 June 1829as the Metropolitan Police Act and, subsequently, the Metropolitan Police wasborn. The preamble to this landmark statute reads as follows:

Whereas offences against property have, of late, increased in and near theMetropolis, and the local establishments of nightly police have been foundinadequate to the prevention and detection of crime, by reason of the frequentunfitness of the individuals employed, the insufficiency of their number, thelimited sphere of their authority and their want of connection and co-operationwith each other. And, whereas it is expedient to substitute a new and moreefficient system of police in lieu of such establishments of nightly watch andnightly police, within the limits hereinafter mentioned, and to constitute an

2 Emsley, C, The English Police: A Political and Social History, 2nd edn, 1996, London:Longman.

The Development and Foundations of Modern Policing

3

office of police which, acting under the immediate authority of one of HisMajestys Principal Secretaries of State, shall direct and control the whole ofsuch new system of police within those limits. Be it therefore enacted, etc

This signalled the formation of the first modern style professional policingsystem in this country and, by 1856, all of England and Wales was covered bya network of police forces. It remains a popular belief that the main drivingforce behind the 1829 Act was the appalling crime rate, particularly in London.Although this was undoubtedly a major factor, there was also another issuewhich was equal in importance, namely the increase in the level of publicdisorder that had escalated in the 18th and early 19th centuries:

The prevention of crime was stressed as the first duty of the new MetropolitanPolice constables and the whole system of beat patrolswas ostensiblydesigned with this in mind. But the uniform, the discipline and theorganisation of the new force suggest that Peel had imported into Londonmany of the policing practices developed in Ireland to deal with civil disorder.3

Whilst the military were used to quell rioting in London and other big cities,there were serious tactical and political disadvantages in using armed troopsfor this purpose. First, long delays were often experienced in transportingtroops from their barracks to the scene of public disorder; subsequently, thesituation was well out of hand by the time they arrived. Secondly, the onlyforms of weaponry available to them were potentially lethal, namely bulletsor bayonets, the use of which often had drastic consequences in terms of fatalor serious injuries. In contrast, the new police were frequently able to resolveboth problems by mainly using wooden truncheons to control riots and, bybeing deployed throughout London on regular 24 hour patrols, were able todisperse many unruly gatherings before they escalated into full scale disorder.

Although, in their early days, the new police were often regarded withdisdain and suspicion by both general populace and even some in authority,they quickly gained the respect still found amongst the majority of the publictoday. Although some assert that this effect is waning, the policing system inthis country is still characterised by the concept of policing by consent, whichremains the envy of policing systems in many other parts of the world.

THE STRUCTURE OF POLICING IN ENGLAND AND WALES

As mentioned above, there are currently 43 police forces in England and Wales.This excludes those with special jurisdiction, such as the British TransportPolice and the Ministry of Defence Police, who operate in various parts of thecountry. The 43 police areas include the two forces in London, namely the

3 Op cit, Emsley, fn 2.


4

Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police. These two London forceswarrant separate coverage as distinct from those outside the capital, and thesewill be discussed below. At this stage, it should be noted that the chief officersof police for both the London forces are commissioners rather than chiefconstables, who head police forces outside the capital.

Since 1964, the Home Secretary has had the power to amalgamate policeforces and this power now exists under s 32 of the Police Act 1996, wheresuch a move can be made on grounds of efficiency and effectiveness. Prior toenacting the 1996 Act, the Conservative Government announced plans toimplement such action, although, to date, this has not occurred. Although thefragmentation of police forces throughout this country lends itself to the notionthat policing in England and Wales is not under centralised control, recentdevelopments in the structure of our police service indicates a movementtowards this end, which will now be discussed.

In 1962, the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police4 rejected theconcept of a national police force under direct central government controland, in response to its report, the Police Act 1964 was passed, which enshrinedthe principle legal rules governing the organisation of the police service upuntil the mid-1990s. An important consequence of this legislation is thatpolicing in this country is governed by three points of power, namely: theHome Secretary, who represents central government and is responsible forthe overall supervision of the police service, as well as being answerable toParliament regarding the services function; local police authorities,responsible for the overall maintenance of police forces within their jurisdictionand ensuring local accountability; and chief officers of police, responsibleprimarily for making operational decisions, as well as the routine managementof their forces.

The police authorities

The balance of power regarding policing in England and Wales was changedcontroversially through Pt I of the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994,which was later consolidated into the Police Act 1996, and these provisions,among other things, generally endeavour to make the police service functionunder a more business management regime.5 They have also created new stylepolice authorities, in contrast to those which existed earlier. Previously, policeauthorities outside London consisted of two-thirds local councillors and one-third local magistrates. These bodies varied considerably in sizeat the extremeends, from between six to over 40 members in total, although the proportion of

4 Cmnd 1728, 1962, London: HMSO5 Molan, M, Constitutional Law: The Machinery of Government, 1997, London: Old Bailey.


5

magistrates and councillors was always the same. The Government White Paper,entitled Police ReformA Police Service for the 21st Century, contained, inter alia,proposals that police authorities should be set to a prescribed number of 16members. This was not itself a controversial measure, since some authoritieswere regarded as too small, whereas, in contrast, others had become too largeand unwieldy. The main controversy was that these bodies should consist ofeight local councillors, three magistrates and five persons appointed by theHome Secretary, who would also appoint the chairperson, who, in turn, wouldhave the casting vote where necessary. These proposals were severely criticised,both within and outside Parliament, on the grounds that this would have givencentral government a significant increase in power over local police forces.6 Inthe end, the Government modified its original proposals, which includedallowing each police authority to elect its own chairperson and increasing thesize of each authority to 17 members, of which nine are local councillors, threeare local magistrates and five are independent members appointed from ashortlist compiled by the Home Secretary.

There is provision under the Police Act 1996 for the Home Secretary toincrease the size of police authorities where appropriate, but the outcomemust result in such bodies reaching odd numbers and the composite ofcouncillors, magistrates and independent members approved by the HomeSecretary remaining unchanged. Other aspects of these reforms included thetransformation of police authorities into corporate bodies which, in turn, musthave regard to any objectives determined by the Home Secretary, as well as toformulate annual local policing plans and comply with these accordingly inorder to meet performance targets. Also, they must publish an annual report,which includes the extent to which the local policing plan has been compliedwith, as well as submit reports on relevant police matters to the Home Secretaryas required by him.

Many functions of the police authorities remain as they did prior to thePolice Act 1996, which include the overall duty to secure the maintenance ofan effective and efficient police force by, among other things, acting as itspaymaster in terms of local expenditure and controlling the police budget.Police authorities also appoint chief constables and assistant chief constables(the latter in consultation with the chief constable), and may require any ofthem to retire, although these decisions can be vetoed by the Home Secretary,who can also require a police authority to retire a chief constable on his owninitiative. The power of the Home Secretarys veto was last used in 1990 in adispute with the police authority over the appointment of the chief constablefor Derbyshire. Police authorities may also employ civilian staff to assist the

6 See Jason-Lloyd, L, Who should have power to police the police? (1993) TheTimes, 24 August; and, also, Changes in the police service (1994) LXVII(2) PoliceJournal 105, AprilJune.


6

police force maintained by it and to enable the authority to discharge itsfunctions, although such employees are under the direction and control ofthe chief constable.

Further moves towards centralised control?

The Police Act 1997 (not to be confused with the Police Act 1996) contains anumber of provisions which have implications for the police service as wellas the exercise of certain powers regarding surveillance (see Chapter 4). Asfar as the structure of the police service is concerned, Pt I of the 1997 Act hasplaced the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) on a statutory footing.This organisation is staffed by police and HM Customs and Excise officers, aswell as persons from the security services and has, since 1992, been involvedwith collating and analysing information and other intelligence in respect ofmatters such as international drug trafficking and money laundering, as wellas other specialist crimes, including kidnap, extortion and counterfeit currency.Part II of the Act makes provision for the formation of a National Crime Squad,designed to deal with serious crime. Both these bodies, under the 1997 Act,will have implications in more than one police area.

Under ss 23 and 24 of the Police Act 1996, chief constables have the powerto collaborate with other police forces or provide mutual aid where additionalofficers or other assistance may be provided. The collaboration under s 23includes sharing resources such as premises, training facilities, technicalsupport and specialised services. An example of the latter includes the use ofpolice helicopters. With regard to s 24, as mentioned above in the introductionto this chapter, the last time mutual aid was used on any mass scale wasduring the winter of 198485, during the series of strikes by the coal miningindustry. As a consequence, police officers from many parts of England andWales were sent to areas where large scale picketing was taking place. Someobservers reported that seeing so many different police forces represented inone place gave the impression of a national police force, although this ventureonly lasted for the duration of one winter. Parallel provisions also exist unders 98 of the Police Act 1996 (previously enacted under s 141 of the CriminalJustice and Public Order Act 1994), whereby chief officers of police may requestassistance from any UK police force, which includes providing additionalconstables. There is also provision for the Home Secretary to act on his ownvolition, presumably in times of emergency, where he may direct a policeforce within another part of the UK to provide such assistance. In other words,police officers from Northern Ireland can be called upon to reinforce the policein any part of England, Wales or Scotland, or police in Scotland can be askedto provide mutual aid to any police force in England and Wales or to NorthernIreland, and the police in England and Wales can be called upon to provideassistance to the police in Northern Ireland or to any force in Scotland. One


7

hopes that such an interchange may never be necessary, in view of theprospective turmoil that would necessitate such action.

Mention should also be made regarding the Association of Chief PoliceOfficers (ACPO), which is the representative body of all police chiefs and hasexisted since 1948. This organisation constitutes a powerful pressure group,capable of influencing central government to a significant extent on a varietyof matters affecting policing in this country. It is this body which facilitatesco-operation between police forces where necessary.

Policing in London

It should be noted that the police authority in respect of the City of LondonPolice is the Common Council of the City of London, although separate andquite unique arrangements have existed regarding the Metropolitan Police.At the time of writing, transitional arrangements are in place through whicha Metropolitan Police Authority has been instituted for the first time. For manyyears, the issue of accountability of the Metropolitan Police has been severelycriticised by a number of commentators. Up until recently, the Home Secretaryconstituted the police authority for the Metropolis, which has the largest policeforce in the UK (approximately 26,400 police officers and 11,250 civiliansupport staff). Although there was provision originally under s 106 of thePolice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and, more recently, under s 96 of thePolice Act 1996 for consultations between the police and local consultativegroups, there has never been an actual police authority for the Metropolis ofLondon compared to those that exist in other parts of England and Wales.Therefore, under s 106 of the 1984 Act and then s 96 of the 1996 Act, specialprovision was made whereby the Home Secretary shall issue guidance to theMetropolitan Police Commissioner in respect of obtaining the views of thecommunity on policing the capital.

Sections 310 to 325 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 nowinstitutes a police authority for the Metropolis of London. However, in April1995, a body was formed called the Metropolitan Police Committee. Thisoriginally consisted of 12 members appointed by the Home Secretary to adviseand assist the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in maintaining an efficientand effective police service, and this body was used to prepare for theinstitution of the Metropolitan Police Authority in July 2000. The committeecompiled regular annual reports and was under the chairmanship of Sir JohnQuinton.

The institution of the Metropolitan Police Authority is inextricably linkedwith the formation of the Greater London Authority, since the new policeauthority consists of 23 members, 12 of which are selected by the Mayor ofLondon and are members of the Greater London Assembly, including theDeputy Mayor. The Metropolitan Police Authority may select its own


8

chairperson from among its own members and this does not discount theDeputy Mayor of London. Other members of the new police authority includeseven independent persons and four magistrates. The independent factionincludes one person appointed directly by the Home Secretary, who is SirJohn Quinton, former chairman of the Metropolitan Police Committeementioned above. The four magistrates on the new police authority have beenappointed by the Greater London Magistrates Courts Association.

In effect, the powers and duties of the new police authority are almostidentical to those which function outside the Metropolitan Police area. Theseinclude publishing annual reports, consultations with local communities andsetting objectives.

The introduction of the Metropolitan Police Authority has automaticallyresulted in abolishing the post of the Receiver, whose functions will, to a largeextent, be performed by the new police authority, especially matters regardingfinance, responsibility for which will move to the Treasurer. The new bodywill also play a role in recommending to the Home Secretary the appointmentof future commissioners, their deputies, assistant commissioners andcommanders. However, whilst a similar selection procedure may be used toappoint the Commissioner, as in the police authorities outside Londonregarding their chief constables, this will be modified to take into account theneed to protect the national interest and the international obligations of theMetropolitan Police Service, and not just its local remit. This is a particularlysensitive issue, which has constituted one of the primary objections in thepast to having a police authority for the Metropolis (see the coverage of therole of the Home Secretary below). The Metropolitan Police Authority will beexpected to account for its actions when summoned before the Greater LondonAssembly in much the same way as do representatives of police authoritiesoutside London when under scrutiny by their respective local authorities.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND GENERALLEGAL STATUS OF THE POLICE

Historically, many constitutional lawyers have expressed varying opinionsregarding the legal status of police officers. Notwithstanding the recent reformsof the police service mentioned above, there is common agreement that policeofficers are not servants of central government, but are officers of the Crownor of the State. Interestingly, whilst the police service is part of the executiveaspect of our constitutional framework, it also has a significant measure ofindependence from it. As mentioned in other parts of this chapter, chief officersof police are not subject to direct orders from any person or body in relationto operational matters although, ultimately, they are answerable to their policeauthorities and the Home Secretary for their actions.


9

The general legal status of the police, which is of prime interest to certainsections of the populace, is their liability for wrongful acts in the course oftheir duty. In view of the wide duties and responsibilities incumbent uponthe average police officer, inevitably, things will go wrong from time to time.There is, of course, the complaints procedure in dealing with grievances againstpolice actions (see Chapter 8) and, also, the police are not immune fromcriminal prosecutions in extreme circumstances, but to what extent areindividual police officers liable for civil wrongs (torts) such as negligence,trespass and false imprisonment? Under the common law, a police officerwas personally liable for his or her wrongful or unlawful acts although, priorto the Police Act 1996, it was left to police authorities as to whether they wereprepared to pay an officers damages and legal costs. Under s 88 of the 1996Act, chief constables are now vicariously liable for torts committed by theirpolice officers in the course of their duties. Costs and damages incurred as aresult or claims settled out of court are paid from the local police budget,provided the police authority gives its approval in the case of the latter.Whether the chief constable has been sued or not, the police authority maypay damages or costs awarded against a police officer within that force.

It is important to mention that police officers are not essentially employees,but holders of a public office determined principally by statute. They can bedismissed only under regulations which deal with breaches of discipline, suchas misuse of authority, neglect of duty, racist behaviour, insubordination andother transgressions which bring the police service into disrepute (see, also,Chapter 8). But police officers are certainly not subject to unlimited privilegesand immunities, as illustrated in the following commentary:

Indeed, legislation restricts the freedom of a police officer in a way in whichno employer could by a contract of employment. Thus, police officers are notallowed to be members of a trade union or of any association which seeks tocontrol or influence the pay or conditions of service of any police force; instead,there are Police Federations for England and Wales and for Scotland, whichrepresent police officers in all matters of welfare and efficiency, other thanquestions of promotion affecting individuals, and with limited powers inrelation to discipline. Police regulations impose a great many restrictionsupon the private life of serving police officers, including one of constitutionalimportance, namely that a police officer shall, at all times, abstain from anyactivity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his dutiesor which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of thepublic that it may so interfere; and, in particular, [he] shall not take any activepart in politics.7

Other obligations are incumbent upon police officers apart from the aboveduties. These include restrictions on where they may live and being obliged

7 Bradley, A and Ewing, K, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 12th edn, 1997,London: Longman.


10

to report for duty with little or no prior notice under urgent circumstances.An off duty police officer may even be expected to place him or herself onduty immediately, in the event of being confronted with a particularly serioussituation which may demand instant police intervention. In essence, a policeofficer is always on duty, hence the requirement that they carry their warrantcards at all times. This brings us to the well worn definition of a police officerwho is described as a citizen in uniform and/or the holder of a warrant card, whohas been given additional powers in the execution of his or her duty (thewords in italics are mine and apply to non-uniformed officers). Is this now anaccurate definition, in view of the substantial increases in police powers sinceit was first formulated? Can the average police officer be regarded as anordinary citizen, even when off duty, in view of the observations made above?

Chief constables

With the exception of the two London forces, which were discussed above,chief officers of police in the remaining 41 police areas in England and Walesare known as chief constables. The unique constitutional status of chiefconstables has been described as follows:

A chief constable is nobodys servant, but an independent officer, upon whompowers and duties are directly conferred by law for the benefit of the populace.His constitutional status remains anomalous and puzzling, even after the re-organisation of the police system implemented by the Police Act 1964. It isstill not clear whether anyone is entitled to give him instructions as to theperformance of any of his duties, or to what extent the Home Secretary isanswerable for decisions taken by chief constables outside the Metropolis.8

The Police Act 1996 re-asserts that chief constables are responsible for thedirection and control of their respective police forces. However, when makingoperational and other decisions, he or she must have regard to the local policingplan mentioned above. In R v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis ex pBlackburn (1968), at p 135, Lord Denning MR gave the following guidanceregarding the legal status of chief officers of police:

The office of Commissioner of Police within the Metropolis dates back to 1829,when Sir Robert Peel introduced his disciplined force. The commissioner was ajustice of the peace specially appointed to administer the police force in theMetropolis. His constitutional status has never been defined either by statute orby the courts. It was considered by the Royal Commission on the Police in theirreport (Cmnd 1728). I have no hesitation, however, in holding that, like everyconstable in the land, he should be, and is, independent of the executive. He is

8 De Smith, S and Brazier, R, Constitutional and Administrative Law, 7th edn, 1994,London: Penguin.


11

not subject to the orders of the Secretary of State, save that, under the Police Act1964, the Secretary of State can call on him to give a report, or to retire in theinterests of efficiency. I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as itis of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so topost his men that crimes may be detected and that honest citizens may go abouttheir affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to beprosecuted and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought but, inall these things, he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Ministerof the Crown can tell him that he must or must not keep observation on thisplace or that; or that he must or must not prosecute this man or that one. Nor canany police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies onhim. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone. That appears sufficientlyfrom Fisher v Oldham Corporation (1930) and the Privy Council case of AttorneyGeneral for New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1955).

Chief constables have the responsibility for appointing, promoting and, wherenecessary, disciplining (including dismissing) all officers below the rank ofassistant chief constable. The appointment of special constables and policecadets also falls within the responsibility of chief constables under the 1996Act, which also requires that they submit annual reports to the Home Secretaryand their police authority, as well as any additional reports as requested byeither, including the submission of criminal statistics to the Home Secretary.Although there are now fairly exhaustive mechanisms in place regarding theaccountability of chief constables, the fact remains that no one can give sucha person direct orders, especially in terms of operational matters. Even thejudiciary have shown great reluctance in interfering with the decisions of policechiefs, particularly with regard to the deployment of manpower and resources,9

although the judges have warned that the exercise of police discretion isreviewable in the courts.10 This was recently demonstrated in R v Commissionerof Police for the Metropolis ex p Free Tibet Campaign and Others (2000), where itwas held that the Metropolitan Police had acted unlawfully by, inter alia,removing banners and using vans to block peaceful protestors from the viewof the visiting Chinese President during an official visit to London.

The Home Secretary and the police

As mentioned above, p 7, a new Metropolitan Police Authority was institutedin July 2000 under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Until this time,

9 See Harris v Sheffield United Football Club Ltd (1987), where Neill LJ stated: I seethe force of the argument that the court must be very slow before it interferes inany way with a decision of a chief constable about the disposition of his forcesSee, also, R v Chief Constable of Sussex ex p International Traders Ferry Ltd (1997).

10 See R v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis ex p Blackburn (No 1) (1968) and R vCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis ex p Blackburn (No 3) (1973).


12

the Home Secretary retained his role as the police authority for the Metropolisof London, assisted by the transitional Metropolitan Police Committee. Eventhough the new authority has commenced its duties, the Home Secretary isstill in a position to exert some influence regarding the policing of the capital.This includes having the ultimate say regarding the appointment of newcommissioners. It was noted on p 7, above, that the Metropolitan PoliceAuthority is, in essence, very similar to the police authorities elsewhere inEngland and Wales. There is one important exception to this statement andthis relates to the fact that the Metropolitan Police Service plays an importantrole in matters which go beyond just policing the capital. As mentioned earlier,the Metropolitan Police perform national as well as international functions,which are of a very sensitive nature, both politically and otherwise. This hasconstituted a powerful argument in the past against it having its own policeauthority. In order to ensure the effective performance of its national andinternational policing functions, para 104 of Sched 27 to the Greater LondonAuthority Act 1999 provides that, if the Home Secretary is not satisfied withthe standard of performance of the Metropolitan Police in its national andinternational functions, then he may direct the Metropolitan Police Authorityto take such measures as may be specified in that direction. The definition ofsuch functions under these provisions includes the personal protection of VIPs,as well as their property, national security, counter-terrorism or the provisionof services for any other national or international purpose.

Notwithstanding the overall effects of these changes, the Home Secretarywill still be the most singularly prominent figure in respect of the policingof this country. Under the Police Act 1996, which has preserved many of thepowers held by him under the Police Act 1964, the Home Secretary, under s37, may determine policing objectives in all areas, having made priorconsultations with the relevant police authorities and their police chiefs.This may also include him requiring police authorities, under s 38, to setperformance targets in order to achieve this end. Under s 42 of the 1996 Act,the Home Secretary may require a police authority to dismiss a chiefconstable (or an assistant chief constable) following an inquiry if necessaryand, if representations are made by that officer, a hearing must be convened(see Ridge v Baldwin (1964), where the principle of the right to a fair hearingwas extended to a former chief constable, who had been dismissed from hispost by a borough police authority, and that committee had not initiallygiven him the opportunity to present his case in defence). The right to makerepresentations where a police authority dismisses a chief constable isprovided for under s 11 of the 1996 Act. Other provisions under the 1996Act include the Home Secretarys power to order inquiries into specificincidents (the Scarman Report on the Brixton riots, for example), theappointment of inspectors of constabulary in order to assess the efficiencyof individual forces, the making of regulations regarding the administrationof the police service as a whole, including matters affecting national pay


13

and conditions, as well as issuing Home Office circulars for the guidance ofthe police service.

In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Northumbria PoliceAuthority (1988), police authorities in several areas, including Northumbria,sought to challenge the Home Secretarys actions regarding the issue of certainriot control equipment. Following the inner city riots in 1981, it had beenapparent that the police could no longer effectively control serious disturbancesusing their existing standard equipment, which was largely confined totruncheons and long shields, especially when dealing with rioters throwingmissiles, including fire bombs. This was acknowledged in the Scarman Report,and it was recommended that the police should be issued with stand-offweaponry, such as CS gas and plastic bullets. The police authorities mentionedabove objected to such devices being issued to their police officers and refusedto authorise their purchase. The Home Secretary then issued a circular to allchief constables, advising them of the availability of such equipment onpermanent loan, in the event of their police authorities refusing to authorisethe purchase of CS gas and plastic bullets. The Court of Appeal held that theHome Secretary had acted lawfully on two grounds. First, under ss 4 and 5 ofthe Police Act 1964, powers to effect the supply of equipment to the policewere vested in chief constables and police authorities. However, under s 41,the Home Secretary also had powers to supply central or common services tothe police service as a whole. It was held that the Home Secretary had lawfullyexercised this power, as riot control equipment fell within this definition.Secondly, it was held that, in acting in this manner, the Home Secretary hadcorrectly exercised the prerogative power to keep the Queens peace, whichwas unaffected by the 1964 Act.

The Inspectorate of Constabulary

With regard to all police forces in England and Wales, many decisions of anyHome Secretary and, indeed, chief police officers, are likely to be influencedby the findings of the Inspectorate of Constabulary, a body first instituted in1856, which inspects the efficiency and effectiveness of all police forces. Theinspectorate currently consists of five inspectors of constabulary11 who areformer chief police officers, headed by a chief inspector of constabulary, who,among other things, are together responsible for laying an annual report onthe Inspectorates work before Parliament. Her Majestys inspectors ofconstabulary are appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the HomeSecretary, and are empowered to inspect all police forces in England and Wales,

11 One inspector of constabulary is expected to retire fairly soon and it has not yetbeen decided as to whether a direct replacement will be sought.


14

including the Metropolitan Police which, up until fairly recently, were exemptfrom their scrutiny.

General operational policing in England and Wales

All recruits to the police service are initially attested as constables (includingpart time voluntary police officers in the special constabulary, who arediscussed below). This is the rank in which all police men and women mustbegin, regardless of educational attainment or other qualities which may resultin promotion during their service. This constitutes one of the many featuresof the police service in England and Wales, distinct from the armed forces,where there is an officer class to which suitable new entrants may immediatelyenter. As a consequence, all senior officers within the police service, includingthose who head such forces, have progressed through all the ranks, startingwith the rank of constable. The first Metropolitan Police Commissioner tohave risen through all the ranks was Sir Joseph Simpson, who took office asCommissioner in 1958. This is now the normal route for all police chiefsthroughout England and Wales. However, there is an accelerated promotionscheme for suitable new recruits or those who demonstrate exceptional abilitiessoon after joining. This, among other things, involves attendance at the PoliceStaff College, where recruits are taught advanced management practices, aswell as learning senior command skills.

All new recruits, even the most promising, have to satisfactorily completetheir initial two year probationary period as constables, which provides allpolice officers with an essential introduction to police duties, (see Figure 1,which depicts the overall rank structure within the police service in Englandand Wales). Certain aspects of the police rank structure were reformed aroundthe early 1990s as a result of the Sheehy Report,12 which endeavoured, interalia, to streamline the management of the police service by removing some ofthe more senior ranks. In the end, the ranks of chief superintendent and deputychief constable were removed, although some existing holders of those rankswere allowed to keep them. Eventually, it was intended that these posts wouldcease to exist, as well as deputy assistant commissioners in London. However,these substantive ranks are due to be restored in the not too distant futureand, already, some officers are wearing the insignias of the hereto abolishedsenior ranks, hence their inclusion in Figure 1.

The general requirements for entry into the police service are contingentupon good health, character, education and appearance, and also upon Britishnationality. There are varying requirements between forces regarding upperand lower age limits; at one time, minimum height requirements were quite

12 Sheehy Commission, Inquiry into Police Responsibilities and Rewards, Cm 2280, 1993,London: HMSO.


15

Figure 1: the police rank structure


16

strictly adhered to. This rule has been relaxed for several years. Efforts arebeing made in an endeavour to make the police service more representativeof the overall population in this country, by focusing recruitment on the ethniccommunity, which is still under-represented within this service.

The training of recruits initially requires 1819 weeks full time attendanceat one of the police training centres, located in regions throughout the country.Training remains a prevalent feature throughout the two year probationaryperiod, which takes the form of practical street experience under varyingdegrees of supervision, but interspersed with classroom instruction. Theprecise training programmes of probationary constables vary between thepolice forces.

In terms of specialist opportunities, the police service possibly has noparallel. A constable having satisfactorily completed his or her probationaryperiod is given the opportunity to either continue working in uniform at alocal police station (divisional or sub-divisional level) or to enter any of arange of specialist areas immediately or at some other stage in their career.These include the Criminal Investigation Department, traffic division, themounted police, the drugs squad, communications, the vice squad, doghandlers, Special Branch, VIP protection, the National Crime Squad, internalinvestigations, public order control, training, youth and community work andmany more. But many prefer to remain as uniformed officers in the local policedivisions, believing that policing at this level can provide all the variety andopportunities that specialist work can bring. There is considerable merit inthis assertion, since police work is equally dependant upon both specialist, aswell as routine, police duties.

The command structure of each police force varies from area to area,although there are certain characteristics that all forces have in common. Theheadquarters and local command structure of a typical provincial police forceis depicted in basic form in Figure 2, whereas the more complex organisationof the Metropolitan Police Service is represented in Figure 3.

Whatever rank a police officer holds, the numerous statutes covering policepowers refer to all police officers as holders of the office of constable, unlessspecific ranks are stipulated for certain procedural purposes. The fundamentaltenet that all police officers hold the office of constable also applies to voluntary,part time police officers, who are members of the special constabulary, whichwill be discussed in the next section.


17

Figure 2: the headquarters command structure of a police force


18

Figure 3: the Metropolitan Police Service


19

The special constabulary

Fairly extensive coverage of this aspect of the police service will be madehere, since it is a relatively understudied subject13 and, it is submitted, warrantsdiscussion here. The special constabulary is a very old institution which, inits original form, pre-dates the formation of the Metropolitan Police in 1829by over 150 years. Although the early justices of the peace and Lords of theManor were expected to appoint officers to enforce the law, they frequentlyneglected this duty and, in 1673, a statute was passed, which enabled twomagistrates to appoint special constables within their respective districts.However, it was the Special Constables Act 1831 which placed this force onthe general footing upon which the modern special constabulary is now based.Since then, the specials, as they are commonly termed, have achieved notableplaces within the history of the modern police service. For example, in 1848,the largest single enrolment of special constables occurred in response to fearsof serious disorder arising from the Chartist movement. This resulted in nofewer than 170,000 specials being deployed in central London. The anticipatedtrouble was averted, since the number of specials outnumbered the protestorsby over three to one. It was during both World Wars that the specialsparticularly excelled and often formed the bulwark of operational policingthroughout many parts of the country. However, they were also involved inother high profile roles during certain events between the war years. From1919 to 1926, they assisted in maintaining order during a series of majorindustrial disputes, including the General Strike, and, during the early 1930s,they were used extensively during a series of demonstrations in Londonresulting from mass unemployment.14

In more modern times, the special constabulary is an auxiliary force withinthe police service, which consists of men and women who serve as part time,unpaid police officers who work in a voluntary capacity. At present, there areabout 18,000 specials throughout England and Wales and, not surprisingly,the greatest representation is to be found within the Metropolis of London,which has about 1,300, although this should be viewed against the number ofregular police officers in that force, which total over 26,000. AlthoughDerbyshire, for instance, has only about 350 specials, the ratio is much higher,compared to about 1,600 regular police officers in that force (about one in fivepolice officers in that county are specials and similar ratios are reflected insome other parts of the country, whilst some are much smaller). Specials receive

13 There are some exceptions. These include Gill, M and Mawby, R, A Special Constable:A Study of the Police Reserve, 1990, Aldershot: Avebury; and, also, Barron, T, TheSpecial Constables Manual, 1997, London: Police Review.

14 The Metropolitan Special Constabulary: An Illustrated History from 1831 to Today, 1981,London: New Scotland Yard.


20

no payment for their services, although they receive limited out of pocketexpenses, such as travel and meal allowances, together with a boot or shoeallowance. They also receive reimbursement for any loss of earnings, forexample, where they attend court. Their police work is confined to whateverspare time they can devote to this end. This often involves a significant sacrificein certain cases, since many have demanding commitments elsewhere but, inany event, they are generally expected to perform at least eight hours voluntaryduty per month.

It is important to note that specials have full police powers, the same asregular police officers, but with one variation. Whereas members of theregular police service may exercise their powers anywhere in this country,specials are restricted to the use of police powers within their respectivepolice areas and within those police areas which immediately border on totheir own. The exception to this general rule are specials in the City ofLondon, who may exercise their police powers in the Metropolitan Policearea as well as the counties which border onto the Greater Londonboundaries. Also, if specials are seconded to a different police area undermutual aid, they will have full police powers within that area. With somevariations, specials are basically equipped with the same uniform as regularfull time police officers, as well as certain protective clothing and equipment.The latter are necessary, because specials, as well as regular police officers,often face the same risks when on duty.

A grade (but not rank) structure exists within the special constabularyfor those wishing to acquire additional responsibility (see Figure 1). This placesgraded officers within the special constabulary in authority above specialswithout or with lower grades, but this cannot be exercised towards regularpolice officers, who supersede specials of any status. Some specials join theregular force having initially served in a voluntary capacity and feel that theywish to make a full time career within the police service. In this respect, aperson joining the special constabulary acquires an excellent introduction tooperational policing. As mentioned on p 11, above, special constables, as wellas regular police officers, are appointed by chief officers of police.

21

CHAPTER 2

POLICE POWERS OF STOP AND SEARCH

INTRODUCTION

The powers of the police to stop and search, particularly in public, has beenthe subject of particular scrutiny in recent years. The excessive use of suchpowers was held to have been a major contributory factor to the underlyingresentment, notably between younger people and the police, which led tothe inner city riots in 1981. It is important to note that this chapter willexamine the law and procedures governing stops and searches by the policewho have not, at that stage, made an arrest. Police powers to search eitherpersons or premises, once an arrest has been effected, will be discussed inChapters 3 and 4.

The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure,1 as part of its remit,examined the then existing laws governing police powers of stop and search.These largely consisted of a patchwork of local Acts of Parliament, whichlacked any standard procedures or uniform application nationally:

The Philips Royal Commission identified two main defects in the existinglaw. First, police powers to stop and search varied from one part of the countryto another. In London, for instance, the police could use the powers under s66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 to stop and search for stolen goodsand similar local powers existed in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool andRochdale, but equivalent powers did not exist in most other parts of thecountry. Secondly, existing powers were either inadequate or, at best, uncertainand required clarification or redefinition.2

As a result, the Royal Commission recommended that uniform powers ofstop and search should be given to the police throughout England and Wales,although the Government rejected the idea of a single or general powercovering every eventuality. In consequence, a major reform of police powersof stop and search, as well as other powers, was enacted under the Police andCriminal Evidence Act 1984.

1 Philips Royal Commission.2 Zander, M, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, 3rd edn, 1995, London: Sweet

& Maxwell.


22

THE POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984

This statute (commonly known as PACE) constituted the greatest singlereform of police powers, certainly during the 20th century, to the extent thatthe bulk of police powers are either contained or consolidated within thisstatute. The main elements of PACE are: powers to stop and search (Pt I);powers of entry, search and seizure (Pt II); arrest (Pt III); detention (Pt IV);questioning and treatment of persons by police (Pt V); Codes of Practice (PtVI); documentary evidence (Pt VII); evidence in criminal proceedings (PtVIII); and police complaints and discipline (Pt IX), together with generalpolice matters and miscellaneous provisions. Since its original enactment, anumber of provisions under PACE have been subject to amendment by otherstatutes, as well as clarification resulting from judicial decisions. These willbe explained at the appropriate stages in this book, which will cover therelevant aspects of this Act.

PACE took almost two years to be passed. Certain clauses in the Policeand Criminal Evidence Bill attracted fierce opposition, both within and outsideParliament, and its passage was further delayed by the general election inMay 1983. Although enacted in October 1984, nearly all of PACE did not comeinto effect until 1986, such was the extent of preparation needed for theoperation of its new provisions. As far as the police s

[Leo Jason-Lloyd, Leonard Jason-Lloyd] an Introduc(BookSee.org)

Documents

Transcript of [Leo Jason-Lloyd, Leonard Jason-Lloyd] an Introduc(BookSee.org)