Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

OBSTRUCT CONSTABLE


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 DKNwhy

DKNwhy

    Forum Legend

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 03:11 PM

The Police Act 1996, section 89 - the offence of resisting or wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.

During the course of a Section 60 search, the individual decides to be an issue.. they refuse to remove a jacket after numerous requests.. and are generally ackward.. causing the search to take much longer than necessary. During the course of the search they are abusive (for which they are arned they are going to be reported under S.5 POA).. would there intent on making the whole process a problem amount to obstruction?


There is no formal legal definition of 'resist', but the Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definition:

RESIST
means to strive against, oppose, try to impede or refuse to comply with.

Legally, the term does not imply any assault has taken place and therefore where a person in the process of being lawfully arrested, tears himself away from the constable or person assisting, this constitutes resistance.



I really would have locked them up for the POA offence, but the OCU was MAD busy.. advice please.. so the LONG process of reporting for summons.. :whistle:

Edited by DKNwhy, 22 May 2005 - 03:19 PM.


#2 DKNwhy

DKNwhy

    Forum Legend

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 07:31 PM

86 views.. no replies though.. umm!!

I think it is a case of resisting a constable in the executioin of their duty.. anyone agree? Disagree? Not care? lol

#3 Lord Vader

Lord Vader

    Lord and Master of All I Survey

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 11,968 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 08:11 PM

Did you successfully complete the search? In which case I'd say that you don't have much chance of getting a retrospective obstruct police past CPS...

#4 DKNwhy

DKNwhy

    Forum Legend

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 10:07 PM

Well.. yes.. i did complete the search, because if necessary I would have moved to using force to complete the search.

"retrospective obstruct police".. what other kind is there?

Edited by DKNwhy, 22 May 2005 - 10:08 PM.


#5 Another Constable

Another Constable

    Die Hard

  • Members
  • 1,422 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 08:38 PM

Well.. yes.. i did complete the search, because if necessary I would have moved to using force to complete the search.

"retrospective obstruct police".. what other kind is there?

View Post


I think LV means that as you completed your task, to then go after him for obstruction would probably not go far. If you couldn't carry out the search, then obstruction is complete.

I see what you are saying about obstruction usually being retrospective (i.e. providing false name and address and being charged once the decepetion is discovered) but even then you are being obstructed in your enquiries right up until the point where you discover the truth.

#6 pH_14

pH_14

    Very Moderate

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 6,049 posts

Posted 28 May 2005 - 05:31 PM

What was the outcome of the search? Any offences?

If not, I'd let it drop and I'm sure he'll float to the top of the pond on another day

#7 DKNwhy

DKNwhy

    Forum Legend

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 30 May 2005 - 11:44 AM

What was the outcome of the search?  Any offences?

If not, I'd let it drop and I'm sure he'll float to the top of the pond on another day

View Post


Well.. he is being reported for S5 POA.. and there is a tick in the 'Ho' box!

#8 jb

jb

    Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 578 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 07:16 AM

You should have locked him up for the POA offence, you could have searched him all you wanted then, and given him some grief!!

Like has been said, you'd probably be hard pushed to get an obstruction as you've managed to carry out the search and the matter has been dealt with, and I guess it really depends on just how much he was kicking off and slowing you down. However if you're reporting him for one, there's no harm in perhaps adding the other. Chat to a sgt who may be able to help further.


If the male had refused to stop altogether, subsection 8 :

    (8) A person who fails to stop or (as the case may be) to stop the vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or both.



#9 Cookie

Cookie

    Forum Regular

  • Excluded
  • 608 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 07:29 AM

This will go nowhere other than an admin detection.
R V ORUM " abuse to a police officer has little effect other than boredom".
CPS won't touch a S5 like this,did you not consider a PND ? ( on the spot £80 ticket)
If eventually you reached your goal and sucessfully searched him then there was no obstruction.Not going immeadiatly belly up and complying automatically with our every whim isn't an offence.
As stated let it go he will come again.
In the meantime go to his house and slash his tyres. :wink:

#10 DKNwhy

DKNwhy

    Forum Legend

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 05:08 PM

Cookie.. the S.5 was not in question.. that has been authorised by a SGT, and will go forward. Especially as it was homophobic

The obstruction issue was the question.




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users