There is no specific power associated with issuing a S.27 Direction to Leave that forces the recipient to reveal his name and address to you, but you must record his/her identity when doing so. On the assumption that a description of their appearance isn't enough, that potentially creates a bit of a catch-22.
The Home Office Guidance on S.27 notes that where there is reason to believe that the recipient is acting, or has been acting, in an antisocial behaviour there will be a power to require these details under S. 50 of the Police Reform Act. However, "antisocial" is given quite a specific meaning in this context and won't always overlap with the conditions for giving a Direction to Leave. This is evident from the Guidance, which even goes as far as saying "Where no power to request the name and address of the person being given a Direction to Leave exists, the constable must inform the person of this when completing the Direction to Leave."
I appreciate that when a S.27 Direction is given there will usually have been antisocial behaviour or the suspicion of an offence and that there will consequently be a power to demand details and arrest if they're not given. I also appreciate that when a S.27 is considered there will often also be some grounds to arrest for D&D, S.5, BoP or something along those lines.
However, the fact remains that it is quite possible that a scenario will meet the criteria for issuing a S.27 whilst establishing no power to require details. Am I right in thinking that there is therefore essentially no action that can be taken unless the potential recipient decides to comply and provide details? That seems utterly bizarre - especially since the HO Guidance explicitly anticipates scenarios where there is no power to require details and states that we warn people of that fact when trying to issue the S.27, so it's not like this is an unforeseen loophole.
Please, someone tell me that I've got this wrong...
S.27 - No Power to Require Details
Started by
Prolixia
, Jul 02 2012 04:08 PM
58 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 02 July 2012 - 04:48 PM
another example of the differences in cross border legislation. In Scotland people are required by law to provide their details upon request of a constable.
#3
Posted 02 July 2012 - 05:01 PM
If they don't give details for a S.27 then arrest for drunk and disorderly as that is possibly the reason you are issuing it anyway. If they are not prepared to listen to you and won't accept a S.27 it leaves you with little choice.
#5
Posted 02 July 2012 - 05:12 PM
Why is description not sufficient?
You need to know their address for issuing it as you can't ban them from an area that includes their home.
#6
Posted 02 July 2012 - 05:22 PM
You need to know their address for issuing it as you can't ban them from an area that includes their home.
"Do you live or work round here?"
#7
Posted 02 July 2012 - 05:27 PM
i think you mean...another example of the differences in cross border legislation. In Scotland people are required by law to provide their details upon request of a constable.
#10
Posted 02 July 2012 - 05:45 PM
another example of the differences in cross border legislation. In Scotland people are required by law to provide their details upon request of a constable.
Only in certain circumstances...
#11
Kilo Sierra
-
- Members
-
- 900 posts
Trooper
Posted 02 July 2012 - 06:04 PM
If they are drunk...you can't give them a notice anyway, so would be a straight D&D all things been equal.
If they are causing you grief, then record as much of their details as possible and try to reason them off town, they they come back, then they had a warning and a chance, but haven't acted on it. So i would nick them, its not a S.27, but they had all the actual chances of one.
I've historically found that by swaying the Alpha of the group or next in line in group dynamics, you have a decent chance, especially if you explain its just going to ruin their nights and cause them grief as they will have to pay a fine and/or be locked up (which might cause their misses to give them grief, as their can't take them out now!) for nothing other than just moving on/chilling out.
If they continue to play the fool, then just nick them. Lets face it, a s.27 is an attempt to stop them from getting nicked and solve their the issue they are causing etc, if they won't allow themselves that chance, why bend over for them? If they won't play ball 1=by causing you to want to speak to them and 2=by not giving you their details, then they are trouble and should be removed from the streets to prevent this.
Ways and means helps alot when it comes to things like this.
J
If they are causing you grief, then record as much of their details as possible and try to reason them off town, they they come back, then they had a warning and a chance, but haven't acted on it. So i would nick them, its not a S.27, but they had all the actual chances of one.
I've historically found that by swaying the Alpha of the group or next in line in group dynamics, you have a decent chance, especially if you explain its just going to ruin their nights and cause them grief as they will have to pay a fine and/or be locked up (which might cause their misses to give them grief, as their can't take them out now!) for nothing other than just moving on/chilling out.
If they continue to play the fool, then just nick them. Lets face it, a s.27 is an attempt to stop them from getting nicked and solve their the issue they are causing etc, if they won't allow themselves that chance, why bend over for them? If they won't play ball 1=by causing you to want to speak to them and 2=by not giving you their details, then they are trouble and should be removed from the streets to prevent this.
Ways and means helps alot when it comes to things like this.
J
#12
Posted 02 July 2012 - 06:34 PM
Is it?The Home Office Guidance on S.27 notes that where there is reason to believe that the recipient is acting, or has been acting, in an antisocial behaviour there will be a power to require these details under S. 50 of the Police Reform Act. However, "antisocial" is given quite a specific meaning in this context and won't always overlap with the conditions for giving a Direction to Leave.
S50 - Persons acting in an anti-social manner
(1) If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)), he may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.
S1 Crime and Disorder Act 1998
(1)An application for an order under this section may be made by a relevant authority if it appears to the authority that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to any person aged 10 or over, namely—
(a)that the person has acted, since the commencement date, in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself;
There doesn't seem to be any issue as far as I can see.
Well said - you're doing them a favour by letting them go home, if they don't want to supply their details (a S27 needs details as you say) then you nick them. Bish bosh, job done.If they continue to play the fool, then just nick them. Lets face it, a s.27 is an attempt to stop them from getting nicked and solve their the issue they are causing etc, if they won't allow themselves that chance, why bend over for them?
Ways and means helps alot when it comes to things like this.
#13
Posted 02 July 2012 - 06:52 PM
If they are drunk...you can't give them a notice anyway, so would be a straight D&D all things been equal.
J
Not quite true as there is different levels of drunkenness. Its down to the officer issuing the S.27 to decide if the individual is drunk but still understands what is being said to them .
"As long as an individual is able to comply fully and
understand its terms, there are various circumstances
under which a Direction to Leave may be given to an
individual because their behaviour is likely to lead to the
occurrence, repetition or continuance of alcohol-related
crime or disorder" NPIA
As its ALCOHOL related one could suggest they may be drunk.
Edited by wanabe, 02 July 2012 - 06:53 PM.
#14
Kilo Sierra
-
- Members
-
- 900 posts
Trooper
Posted 02 July 2012 - 07:26 PM
Not quite true as there is different levels of drunkenness. Its down to the officer issuing the S.27 to decide if the individual is drunk but still understands what is being said to them .
"As long as an individual is able to comply fully and
understand its terms, there are various circumstances
under which a Direction to Leave may be given to an
individual because their behaviour is likely to lead to the
occurrence, repetition or continuance of alcohol-related
crime or disorder" NPIA
As its ALCOHOL related one could suggest they may be drunk.
Good link, like that.
I would say that if someone was DRUNK i would not be issuing a S.27, if they were IN DRINK, then i would consider it on its merits and go from there.
As a expert witness of drunkiness (AKA a police officer) we can make this judgement call.
But if you start saying they are drunk, then the defence opens up of 'i was too drunk to fully understand...hic', which is where the useful, if pedantic phase of 'in drink' can help. This is because it recognised the alcohol factor, but is not as strong (or intoxicated) as drunk.
So you are correct in that it is a judgement call and while i was possibly lax in say drunk, at least i knew what i meant, nice try though
#15
Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:37 PM
I always see S27 as a voluntary option like FPN. If they want to leave by their own means then they provide the neccesary detail. If not then they're coming in whether they like it or not.
#16
Posted 02 July 2012 - 10:36 PM
If I am dealing with someone who I think "Yeah, I'm going to section 27 him and clear him out of it for the night" I will say "Right, buddy, what's your name?" they will normally go "Why?", my normal response is "What else do you want me to call you then?" At that point they normally give their name. I then get the book it, ask them the rest and they give it. If they don't, they get nicked for D&D!
#17
Kilo Sierra
-
- Members
-
- 900 posts
Trooper
Posted 02 July 2012 - 10:38 PM
If I am dealing with someone who I think "Yeah, I'm going to section 27 him and clear him out of it for the night" I will say "Right, buddy, what's your name?" they will normally go "Why?", my normal response is "What else do you want me to call you then?" At that point they normally give their name. I then get the book it, ask them the rest and they give it. If they don't, they get nicked for D&D!
Nice bit of ways and means actions there
#18
Posted 03 July 2012 - 09:33 AM
I appreciate that there will normally be other ways of disposing with someone, but this wasn't a practical question - I was asking if it was really the case that the S.27 legislation had been introduced missing an important component.
It's wrong to say that someone needs to be at least a little drunk before a S.27 can be issued - it's enough that their continued presence is believed to cause or contribute to alcohol-related crime or disorder. That might mean that the recipient is completely sober, but is freely handing out spirits to the local rough sleepers because he likes to watch them get rowdy and fight each other - a weird scenario, but one that meets the requirements for S.27 without D&D being an option.
The power to require a name and address under S. 50 Police Reform Act is specific to antisocial behaviour within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - it says so explicitly in S.50. I'm slightly confused about this bit, because S.1 CDA 1998 although relating to ASBOs doesn't really define what ASB is. However, it does say that S.1 applies to people that have acted "in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself", which is as close to a definition as I could find. Granted that's quite broad - but it is a different test to that used to decide whether S.27 applies and it's reasonable to assume that there will be scenarios that fit one test and not the other - something supported by the Home Office giving instructions for those cases where there is no power to require details (including under S.50).
It's true that in practice there would be an offence for which you could arrest, or at least ASB that allows S.50 of the Police Reform Act to be used. However, these don't necessarily cover every situation, and it seems that the Home Office expects scenarios to arise where they don't.
It's wrong to say that someone needs to be at least a little drunk before a S.27 can be issued - it's enough that their continued presence is believed to cause or contribute to alcohol-related crime or disorder. That might mean that the recipient is completely sober, but is freely handing out spirits to the local rough sleepers because he likes to watch them get rowdy and fight each other - a weird scenario, but one that meets the requirements for S.27 without D&D being an option.
The power to require a name and address under S. 50 Police Reform Act is specific to antisocial behaviour within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - it says so explicitly in S.50. I'm slightly confused about this bit, because S.1 CDA 1998 although relating to ASBOs doesn't really define what ASB is. However, it does say that S.1 applies to people that have acted "in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself", which is as close to a definition as I could find. Granted that's quite broad - but it is a different test to that used to decide whether S.27 applies and it's reasonable to assume that there will be scenarios that fit one test and not the other - something supported by the Home Office giving instructions for those cases where there is no power to require details (including under S.50).
It's true that in practice there would be an offence for which you could arrest, or at least ASB that allows S.50 of the Police Reform Act to be used. However, these don't necessarily cover every situation, and it seems that the Home Office expects scenarios to arise where they don't.
Edited by Prolixia, 03 July 2012 - 09:34 AM.
#19
Posted 03 July 2012 - 06:59 PM
S27 VCRA, paragraphs 5 & 6:
One could argue that the person refusing to give their details is not complying with the S27 direction to leave... if that's the case, S50 PRA isn't required.
From a purely practical viewpoint, I've issued loads of S27's over the last few years and I've yet to have anyone refuse to give their details without kicking off further - giving me plenty of grounds for arrest for D&D, S5, or whatever...
(5) A constable who gives a direction under this section must make a record of—
a) the terms of the direction and the locality to which it relates;
b) the individual to whom it is given;
c) the time at which it is given;
d) the period during which that individual is required not to return to the locality.
(6) A person who fails to comply with a direction under this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
One could argue that the person refusing to give their details is not complying with the S27 direction to leave... if that's the case, S50 PRA isn't required.
From a purely practical viewpoint, I've issued loads of S27's over the last few years and I've yet to have anyone refuse to give their details without kicking off further - giving me plenty of grounds for arrest for D&D, S5, or whatever...
#20
Kilo Sierra
-
- Members
-
- 900 posts
Trooper
Posted 03 July 2012 - 07:22 PM
I appreciate that there will normally be other ways of disposing with someone, but this wasn't a practical question - I was asking if it was really the case that the S.27 legislation had been introduced missing an important component.
It's wrong to say that someone needs to be at least a little drunk before a S.27 can be issued - it's enough that their continued presence is believed to cause or contribute to alcohol-related crime or disorder. That might mean that the recipient is completely sober, but is freely handing out spirits to the local rough sleepers because he likes to watch them get rowdy and fight each other - a weird scenario, but one that meets the requirements for S.27 without D&D being an option.
The power to require a name and address under S. 50 Police Reform Act is specific to antisocial behaviour within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - it says so explicitly in S.50. I'm slightly confused about this bit, because S.1 CDA 1998 although relating to ASBOs doesn't really define what ASB is. However, it does say that S.1 applies to people that have acted "in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself", which is as close to a definition as I could find. Granted that's quite broad - but it is a different test to that used to decide whether S.27 applies and it's reasonable to assume that there will be scenarios that fit one test and not the other - something supported by the Home Office giving instructions for those cases where there is no power to require details (including under S.50).
It's true that in practice there would be an offence for which you could arrest, or at least ASB that allows S.50 of the Police Reform Act to be used. However, these don't necessarily cover every situation, and it seems that the Home Office expects scenarios to arise where they don't.
what do you want us to say? Plenty of ways to deal with situation, sometimes it is simpley the fact that a piece of law just does not fit, no matter how you try.Fortunately the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 does not define ASB, as strict defininations can be both a help and hinderence. . This allows it be be used when an officer can justify it, it can lead to people arguing over it, but generally not too much. All crime is of course anti-social....
Not entirely sure it is actually missing anything, it serves the purpose nicely.
S27 VCRA, paragraphs 5 & 6:
One could argue that the person refusing to give their details is not complying with the S27 direction to leave... if that's the case, S50 PRA isn't required.
From a purely practical viewpoint, I've issued loads of S27's over the last few years and I've yet to have anyone refuse to give their details without kicking off further - giving me plenty of grounds for arrest for D&D, S5, or whatever...
Exactly, happy days
#21
Posted 03 July 2012 - 08:18 PM
S27 VCRA, paragraphs 5 & 6:
One could argue that the person refusing to give their details is not complying with the S27 direction to leave... if that's the case, S50 PRA isn't required.
From a purely practical viewpoint, I've issued loads of S27's over the last few years and I've yet to have anyone refuse to give their details without kicking off further - giving me plenty of grounds for arrest for D&D, S5, or whatever...
Never had anyone refuse details with a Sec 27 Direction to leave notice.
I've spoken to folk who've become arsey with me but after explaining the alternatives to them they've been quite compliant.
We tend to use it as a means of dispersing alcoholics from the station who are begging when we have no-complainants but plenty of staff witnessing them approaching persons. The local Magistrates throws out cases of begging without a victim statement, which is very frustrating as I hear other courts dont.
#22
Posted 03 July 2012 - 08:49 PM
If someone doesn't give me there details for a direction to leave then they are coming in - simple as. You can require their details under s50 if you suspect they have been involved in anti-social behaviour (covers alot) and refusal to give name and address for that is an offence.
Or simply lock them up for D&D if they are actually drunk and disorderly.
Or simply lock them up for D&D if they are actually drunk and disorderly.
#23
Han Solo
-
- Members
-
- 167 posts
Learning the Ropes
Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:12 PM
I usually had no issues when giving out a S27 notice, I would really class it as the final action before arrest in these cases, and anyone who in my eyes would complete the criteria for a S27 notice will be given their fair share of opportunities to leave voluntarily before issuing a S27.
Only had to issue 2 of these notices and each time the person issued with the notice have been fairly compliant (except for a few choice words from them both times), and only one lead to an arrest.
I would certainly agree that S.50 PRA covers requiring details from the person for the issue of a S.27 - and it has been covered above the other times when it has been possible to deal with a situation by the way of a S 27 notice the persons end up kicking off and getting arrested for S5 or D&D.
Only had to issue 2 of these notices and each time the person issued with the notice have been fairly compliant (except for a few choice words from them both times), and only one lead to an arrest.
I would certainly agree that S.50 PRA covers requiring details from the person for the issue of a S.27 - and it has been covered above the other times when it has been possible to deal with a situation by the way of a S 27 notice the persons end up kicking off and getting arrested for S5 or D&D.
#24
Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:04 AM
The simple answer is that there is no offence committed by someone who refuses to give their name and address when being issued a direction to leave. There may be offences committed under S50 PRA etc as has been mentioned,
The offence is committed when the person refuses to comply with the direction to leave. The police do not need to know that person's name or address in order for this offence to be complete.
Think about the conditional power of arrest under S5 POA 1986 (repealed in 2005)... you didn't need to confirm someone's details for them to be given the verbal warning,
S27 VCRA actually amends PACE so that the police can take and use photographs of people given a S27 direction in order that they can be used as evidence should the individual breach the direction. Whilst there is no power to use force to take the photograph, it is obvious that when consideration was given to establishing the identity of an individual, this is the extent that the powers that be decreed.
The offence is committed when the person refuses to comply with the direction to leave. The police do not need to know that person's name or address in order for this offence to be complete.
Think about the conditional power of arrest under S5 POA 1986 (repealed in 2005)... you didn't need to confirm someone's details for them to be given the verbal warning,
S27 VCRA actually amends PACE so that the police can take and use photographs of people given a S27 direction in order that they can be used as evidence should the individual breach the direction. Whilst there is no power to use force to take the photograph, it is obvious that when consideration was given to establishing the identity of an individual, this is the extent that the powers that be decreed.
#25
Posted 12 July 2012 - 01:48 PM
I'll always offer the S.27 before a DnD because then in my notes/court/case progression I can point out I tried the less griefy option first
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
