• Active Topics  Back Forward Stop Play

a case of UNLAWFUL ARREST

OFF TOPIC is for any news story not directly linked to PCSO issues, off duty leisure pursuits. Sailing down the Thames. Playing computer games or basket weaving.

Moderator: national-PCSOs

User avatar
falkor
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:39 am
Alignment: 'Xevious'
Location: Surrey
Contact:

a case of UNLAWFUL ARREST

Post by falkor » Sun May 05, 2013 9:34 am

Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EADY Between : LORD HANNINGFIELD OF CHELMSFORD Claimant - and -THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF ESSEX POLICE
this 2011 case shows the principle of The early morning raid challenged by a man with the resources to do it. LORD HANNINGFIELD was arrested by police constables who then searched his house and detained him at the police station using their BREAD AND BUTTER powers that you would think that they and their supervisors would know inside out!

and yet here we have a case that shows such actions as UNLAWFUL, the arrest was unlawful, the search was unlawful and yes, the detention at the police station was unlawful - WHY?

well because the law says The power of summary arrest may only be exercised if the relevant officer (in this case, Det Sgt Thomson) had reasonable grounds for believing that it was “necessary” to do so:
  • to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
  • correspondingly as regards the person’s address;
  • to prevent the person in question –
    • causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
    • suffering physical injury;
    • causing loss of or damage to property;
    • committing an offence against public decency ; or
    • causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
  • to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
  • to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
  • to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.
The court concluded that NONE of these conditions applied AND AWARDED COMPENSATION READ THE ENTIRE JUDGEMENT HERE

This is a 2011 case, so what is the relevance in 2013? The relevance is that such cases appear to be continuing on a regular basis, as can be seen in the national newspapers this year, last year and following on closely from the February judgement.

Why have other people not challenged their "unlawful arrests"? Undoubtedly further such "unlawful arrests" have quite probably occurred but who has the resources of Lord Hanningfield to mount a challenge? And who "could actually be bothered"?
UK planning forums got a planning application in the UK?