Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

S.27 Direction to Leave


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
25 replies to this topic

#1 rosco

rosco

    Forum Obsessed!

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 5,238 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:27 PM

Hi,

I've always understood the S.27 Notice to Leave as being applicable only to people that you believe may be involved in alcohol-related ASB if you do not issue one, as in they do not necessarily have to be drunk/drinking but could be supplying alcohol to people who would, or enticing a group who had been drinking to cause problems.

However, I've had officers who think that it can be issued for general ASB as well, and who read the alcoholo-related bit as an "or" and not necessary to have to issue the DtL.

What do others thinks, what is the basis in law?

#2 Capt. Carrot

Capt. Carrot

    Die Hard

  • Members
  • 1,549 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:36 PM

Hi,

I've always understood the S.27 Notice to Leave as being applicable only to people that you believe may be involved in alcohol-related ASB if you do not issue one, as in they do not necessarily have to be drunk/drinking but could be supplying alcohol to people who would, or enticing a group who had been drinking to cause problems.

However, I've had officers who think that it can be issued for general ASB as well, and who read the alcoholo-related bit as an "or" and not necessary to have to issue the DtL.

What do others thinks, what is the basis in law?


The direction to leave is subject to a "test". The test, as referred to by the Act in para 2(a) is that the crime and disorder is alcohol related. I'm not aware of any amendment that removes the requirement for the alcohol to be a factor.

#3 Buck

Buck

    Mr rabbit

  • Lifetime Power Users+
  • 877 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:38 PM

I've never been specifically pointed out to the "alcohol related" part of this and have always just based it on ASB, but looking at the legislation it does seem grey as it could be read as:
  • Alcohol related (crime or disorder) or
  • (Alcohol related crime) or disorder

Directions to individuals who represent a risk of disorder
(1)If the test in subsection (2) is satisfied in the case of an individual aged 16 or over who is in a public place, a constable in uniform may give a direction to that individual—

(a)requiring him to leave the locality of that place; and

(b)prohibiting the individual from returning to that locality for such period (not exceeding 48 hours) from the giving of the direction as the constable may specify.

(2)That test is—

(a)that the presence of the individual in that locality is likely, in all the circumstances, to cause or to contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder in that locality, or to cause or to contribute to a repetition or continuance there of such crime or disorder; and

(b)that the giving of a direction under this section to that individual is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of there being such crime or disorder in that locality during the period for which the direction has effect or of there being a repetition or continuance in that locality during that period of such crime or disorder.


From Clicky

#4 Tisi

Tisi

    Learning the Ropes

  • Members
  • 135 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:16 PM

It has to be alcohol related, it's quite clear in the legislation, but that doesn't mean alcohol has to have been consumed. For example, if Mr J Bloggs has been to the High Street off licence every Friday night for the past three weeks, bought and consumed a quantity of alcohol and then caused trouble outside the shop, if he turned up on a fourth Friday at the same place it would be reasonable to assume that the same events would unfold. Therefore a Sec 27 would be appropriate. A bit specific perhaps, but it illustrates the point.

A Sec 27 can be given to a member of a group that is likely to cause trouble, even if he/she hasn't been drinking but others have.

The OP's first paragraph is correct - it must be alcohol related and just ASB would not justify the issuing of a Sec 27.

Having said all that, I have seen officers issue them when the Subsection 2 test hasn't been met. Not my problem though, as I don't have to justify other officers' actions.

#5 Smiley Culture

Smiley Culture

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,081 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:45 PM

The OP's first paragraph is correct - it must be alcohol related and just ASB would not justify the issuing of a Sec 27.

Having said all that, I have seen officers issue them when the Subsection 2 test hasn't been met. Not my problem though, as I don't have to justify other officers' actions.


I think that you and Rosco have raised a good point. I wonder whether we'll see some form of policy review, or a test case, at some point in the future.

Edited by Smiley Culture, 13 March 2012 - 04:46 PM.


#6 Kilo Sierra

Kilo Sierra

    Trooper

  • Members
  • 956 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 01:03 AM

I've never been specifically pointed out to the "alcohol related" part of this and have always just based it on ASB, but looking at the legislation it does seem grey as it could be read as:

  • Alcohol related (crime or disorder) or
  • (Alcohol related crime) or disorder

From Clicky





I do struggle to see where the difficultly working out this VERY useful bit of law is?

Disorder/crime=Yes
Alcohol somewhere=Yes
Over 10=Yes

Direction to leave, arrestable if breach this notice.

The understanding of where the alcohol is coming from might be dubious, but as long as within your process, it is reasonable, not totally made up, then you will be ok. Crime is obvious or should be to a Police officer, as is disorder, as if you can't graps these, then some more fundermental knowledge should be gained. Several threads on good practice as well, such as CCTV support or maps etc. Attempting to over imagine the requirements is likely the major hurdel people fall at.

Really is very easy to apply, powerful and easy to deal with if people bother to read the act/be taught it.

#7 harrogate_al

harrogate_al

    Experienced

  • Members
  • 657 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:57 AM

I think what the post is getting at (and one of my REGULAR INSPECTORS too...!) is that the "test" in section two words it like this...

"Alcohol related crime or disorder"

Now until I see a test case, that to me COULD read as alcohol related crime being one part and disorder being another, thus the (alcohol related crime) or (disorder)

It is down to interpretation at the moment, unless you can tell me that there has been a test case or that there is any other wording that alcohol has to be involved other than this?

Where does it actually say that the disorder has to be alcohol related? Alcohol related crime, yes, no argument, but the "OR" throws it open to interpretation. If I said "violent crime or fraud" would it automatically mean the fraud had to be violent?

#8 Smiley Culture

Smiley Culture

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,081 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 03:13 PM

Where does it actually say that the disorder has to be alcohol related? Alcohol related crime, yes, no argument, but the "OR" throws it open to interpretation. If I said "violent crime or fraud" would it automatically mean the fraud had to be violent?


Looking at where S.27 sits within the chapter headings of the Violent Crime Reduction Act [ http://www.legislati...006/38/contents ], my interpretation is that it means alcohol-related crime or alcohol-related disorder. But I should add that I'm no legal expert...

Edited by Smiley Culture, 15 March 2012 - 03:19 PM.


#9 Bobby-Bali

Bobby-Bali

    Die Hard

  • Members
  • 1,631 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:59 PM

There is no comma in the sentence.

Alcohol related crime or disorder - connected

alcohol related crime, or disorder - separate

#10 Chewie

Chewie

    PS.com Staff & Wookiee

  • Moderators
  • 10,283 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:20 PM

There is no comma in the sentence.

Just what I was going to write... well put. :p

#11 BristolSam

BristolSam

    Experienced

  • Members
  • 756 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:27 PM

i'm not so sure, I've read a bit of the committee debate on hansard last night and it seemed to indicate it was intended to address asb as well as alcohol related crime. Haven't read all of it though so could very well be they changed their minds towards the final debates

Edit: re-read it and the act, quite clear it specifically only refers to alcohol related crime or alcohol related disorder. This is because:

1) The subsection is labelled 'Alcohol related disorder in public places' http://www.legislati...006/38/contents

2) Reading the debate on hansard the questions raised are centred around whether alcohol related disorder should be included in the bill as well as alcohol related crime since it was put forward that we already have s5 and drunk+disorderly to deal with those kind of offences therefore it would follow that they were focusing only on alcohol related asb not general asb. Example given was a person urinating out of view of the public may not be a criminal offence but could be alcohol related disorder http://www.publicati...am/51018s01.htm

Edited by BristolSam, 15 March 2012 - 10:41 PM.


#12 GolfNovember

GolfNovember

    Settling In

  • Power Users
  • 206 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:30 AM

I've known the direction to leave to be given to coach drivers in charge of coaches containing many intoxicated persons following a major event :lol:

#13 Samson

Samson

    Trooper

  • Members
  • 812 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 05:47 PM

I think it is rather wishful thinking to try and remove the alcohol requirement from s.27 orders. Regardless of what is in Hansard the wording in the final act is quite precise. Nicking someone for a breach of a s. 27 order which was incorrectly issued in the first place isn't a good thing to start doing.

#14 BristolSam

BristolSam

    Experienced

  • Members
  • 756 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 12:52 AM

I think it is rather wishful thinking to try and remove the alcohol requirement from s.27 orders. Regardless of what is in Hansard the wording in the final act is quite precise. Nicking someone for a breach of a s. 27 order which was incorrectly issued in the first place isn't a good thing to start doing.


Hansard shows it is aimed at alcohol related asb?

Not sure I'd agree it's quite precise though, if it was there wouldn't be this much discussion around it

#15 Kilo Sierra

Kilo Sierra

    Trooper

  • Members
  • 956 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 12:59 PM

Why is there such a issue about working out if it is for ASB or crime? as they go hand in hand and are often 1 and the same, or ASB leading to substantive crime.

In another current post on S.27s i included a section of the guidence from the forms, which allows and suggests S.50 (names and addresses) may be used, which is part of the 'ASB tool kit' suggesting to me that the S.27 noyice can be used for both early intervention of substantive crime e.g Crim Dam/Public order or to curtail ASB (from escalating to substative crime or causing disorder).

Strikes me that too much reference to legal text books and not enough practical police work muddys the otherwise clear waters. Lets not forget that regardless of what your mate next to you says or Hansard (who ever he(?) is?), YOU have to justifiy YOUR actions 100% of the time.

J

#16 Smiley Culture

Smiley Culture

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,081 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 02:13 PM

Why is there such a issue about working out if it is for ASB or crime? as they go hand in hand and are often 1 and the same, or ASB leading to substantive crime.

In another current post on S.27s i included a section of the guidence from the forms, which allows and suggests S.50 (names and addresses) may be used, which is part of the 'ASB tool kit' suggesting to me that the S.27 noyice can be used for both early intervention of substantive crime e.g Crim Dam/Public order or to curtail ASB (from escalating to substative crime or causing disorder).

Strikes me that too much reference to legal text books and not enough practical police work muddys the otherwise clear waters. Lets not forget that regardless of what your mate next to you says or Hansard (who ever he(?) is?), YOU have to justifiy YOUR actions 100% of the time.


I haven't seen any discussion here about whether it's for crime or for ASB. What is being discussed is whether it can be issued for either if there is no alcohol involved.

Edited by Smiley Culture, 18 March 2012 - 02:14 PM.


#17 Kilo Sierra

Kilo Sierra

    Trooper

  • Members
  • 956 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 04:11 PM

My bad-http://www.policespe...tion-27-notice/ is the other thread...

The test within the form book we are issued in StaffsPol, make not suggestion as to been able to direct people to leave for ASB only, linking it always back to the presence of Alcohol, and never seen heard it mentioned by friends in out forces that they given them as a general power of direction to leave.

Wishful thinking to remove the alcohol requirement i think.

J

#18 BristolSam

BristolSam

    Experienced

  • Members
  • 756 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 06:05 PM

Why is there such a issue about working out if it is for ASB or crime? as they go hand in hand and are often 1 and the same, or ASB leading to substantive crime.

In another current post on S.27s i included a section of the guidence from the forms, which allows and suggests S.50 (names and addresses) may be used, which is part of the 'ASB tool kit' suggesting to me that the S.27 noyice can be used for both early intervention of substantive crime e.g Crim Dam/Public order or to curtail ASB (from escalating to substative crime or causing disorder).

Strikes me that too much reference to legal text books and not enough practical police work muddys the otherwise clear waters. Lets not forget that regardless of what your mate next to you says or Hansard (who ever he(?) is?), YOU have to justifiy YOUR actions 100% of the time.

J


Hansard is the name given to the record of parliamentary debates. It can be a useful tool in statutory interpretation as it allows you to read what was discussed at both the committee stage of the bill and the reading stages before it is passed into law. In this instance when reading one of the committee debates it was clear (to me) that the idea was to combat alcohol related asb and not asb in general.

It is important to know the law before you can employ practical policing imo

#19 Kilo Sierra

Kilo Sierra

    Trooper

  • Members
  • 956 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 06:37 PM

Hansard is the name given to the record of parliamentary debates. It can be a useful tool in statutory interpretation as it allows you to read what was discussed at both the committee stage of the bill and the reading stages before it is passed into law. In this instance when reading one of the committee debates it was clear (to me) that the idea was to combat alcohol related asb and not asb in general.

It is important to know the law before you can employ practical policing imo


It is very important to know the law, before attempting use it operationally.

That been said, BlackStones and the actual Acts usually provide more than enough information. This especially coupled with some PNLD case law, as lets face it, no matter how much the MPs/Lords wish something to mean whatever, it is still the Judges and Law lords that say yes or no.

In terms of interpetation, i believe that S.27s are intended to combat alcohol related crime/ASB, much the same as yourself.

In regard to Hansard, never heard of it, yet have a decent grasp of operational work, which to me suggests still considerable differences between forces training styles.

J

#20 CalvinK

CalvinK

    L Plates

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 07:15 PM

It is very important to know the law, before attempting use it operationally. That been said, BlackStones and the actual Acts usually provide more than enough information. This especially coupled with some PNLD case law, as lets face it, no matter how much the MPs/Lords wish something to mean whatever, it is still the Judges and Law lords that say yes or no. In terms of interpetation, i believe that S.27s are intended to combat alcohol related crime/ASB, much the same as yourself. In regard to Hansard, never heard of it, yet have a decent grasp of operational work, which to me suggests still considerable differences between forces training styles. J


I'm going to respectuflly disagree with you on a point of yours. The Judiciary themselves say that they don't make law, the simply define what it is. 99/100 this is what they do. Hansard can be and is referred to by judges in order to ascertain what the intent of Parliament was when writing the Bill, due to the legislature having the constitutional role of writing legislation.

I will agree though that you don't need to necessarily know that to use the power, I'd say it is helpful if there is some ambiguity in the law, as we've been told that S.27s are very difficult to prosecute and therefore D&D is preferred.

#21 Fry

Fry

    PoliceSpecials.com Staff

  • Moderators
  • 10,186 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 07:15 PM

Strikes me that too much reference to legal text books and not enough practical police work muddys the otherwise clear waters. Lets not forget that regardless of what your mate next to you says or Hansard (who ever he(?) is?), YOU have to justifiy YOUR actions 100% of the time.

J


Srikes me as not actually having read the whole thread, the question from the OP is asking a question about the operational use of s27 directions, and that some people are interpreting them differently. As people have said above, some officers are interpreting it as alcohol related [crime and disorder] and some have interpreted it as [alcohol related crime] and [disorder], i.e. that the disorder doesn't need to be alcohol related, and this is muddying the waters. :new_yes: It's useful to know whether they are abusing the law, or we're missing a trick.

It is very important to know the law, before attempting use it operationally.

That been said, BlackStones and the actual Acts usually provide more than enough information. This especially coupled with some PNLD case law, as lets face it, no matter how much the MPs/Lords wish something to mean whatever, it is still the Judges and Law lords that say yes or no.

In terms of interpetation, i believe that S.27s are intended to combat alcohol related crime/ASB, much the same as yourself.

In regard to Hansard, never heard of it, yet have a decent grasp of operational work, which to me suggests still considerable differences between forces training styles.

J


I'm sure you don't mean to be, but you do seem to be suggesting that your training must be awesome, as others are asking questions. :new_wave:

Constitutionally, the law is enacted by Parliament and then interpreted by the courts. The courts will usually assume that the statute is what Parliament intends, however where there is ambiguity they will factor in a number of considerations rather than just plucking a "Yes" or a "No" out of thin air. Chief amongst those considerations will be the intention of Parliament, and the nuisance/problem/issue that Parliament were intending to deal with through that particular piece of legislation, and in examining that will use Hansard.

As a police officer you will likely never need to look at Hansard, but it can be useful and interesting for police officers to look at as it may give some indication on which side the court will fall on their creative interpretation of the statute. I think people who are using s27 directions for just "disorder" as opposed to "alcohol related disorder" are on dodgy ground.

#22 Kilo Sierra

Kilo Sierra

    Trooper

  • Members
  • 956 posts

Posted 18 March 2012 - 07:27 PM

Srikes me as not actually having read the whole thread, the question from the OP is asking a question about the operational use of s27 directions, and that some people are interpreting them differently. As people have said above, some officers are interpreting it as alcohol related [crime and disorder] and some have interpreted it as [alcohol related crime] and [disorder], i.e. that the disorder doesn't need to be alcohol related, and this is muddying the waters. :new_yes: It's useful to know whether they are abusing the law, or we're missing a trick.



I'm sure you don't mean to be, but you do seem to be suggesting that your training must be awesome, as others are asking questions. :new_wave:

Constitutionally, the law is enacted by Parliament and then interpreted by the courts. The courts will usually assume that the statute is what Parliament intends, however where there is ambiguity they will factor in a number of considerations rather than just plucking a "Yes" or a "No" out of thin air. Chief amongst those considerations will be the intention of Parliament, and the nuisance/problem/issue that Parliament were intending to deal with through that particular piece of legislation, and in examining that will use Hansard.

As a police officer you will likely never need to look at Hansard, but it can be useful and interesting for police officers to look at as it may give some indication on which side the court will fall on their creative interpretation of the statute. I think people who are using s27 directions for just "disorder" as opposed to "alcohol related disorder" are on dodgy ground.


No, was more meaning that we aren't really given any insight into the 'creation' of the act phase or those sort of research locations (short of Blackstones), but have a more heavily use of practical teaching of operational policing with inputs from the experienced memebers of the force on what is 'best practice' and really acceptable. Our training is't better, in fact if you consider the lack of research training into, lesser, but the actual operational stuff is quite fit for purpose. Apologies if came across like that, same family.

Never having heard of Hansard, i rely on PNLD case law, as while not actually MAKING law, it CREATES the reality of it's useage.

Hope that clears my position

J

#23 The Machine

The Machine

    L Plates

  • Members
  • 21 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:56 AM

Please can anyone give examples when they issued a S27. iN 3 Yrs I have only issued one S27 to a person whos breath had smelt of alcohol and he was being abusive to some shop keepers. Many thanks

#24 CalvinK

CalvinK

    L Plates

  • Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 07:11 PM

Please can anyone give examples when they issued a S27. iN 3 Yrs I have only issued one S27 to a person whos breath had smelt of alcohol and he was being abusive to some shop keepers. Many thanks


Given many when people have been abusive to doorstaff on a night out.

#25 Kilo Sierra

Kilo Sierra

    Trooper

  • Members
  • 956 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 07:57 PM

A person was witnessed been ejected from a club, was been rowdy verbally as well as physically to the door staff/customers and due to expectation that person might linger and cause issues, a S.27 was issued to leave the area where the main night life scene was located. No offences disclosed and the person had been witnessed, smelt of and acted in a manner which lead me to believe they had been drinking alcohol.

Some people were acting in an anti-social manner, involving under aged street drinking as well as casuing public/private property (businesses) issues. The people were issued S.27s (indivdually) to prevent them returning and casuing more issues, without the real threat of arrest.

2 nice 'clean' examples of the issuing of some S.27s

J