58 replies to this topic

[Hoodles25]

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.

Our supervisors will actively encourage us to dish out S27's at the first signs of trouble, the theory is that those causing trouble will only get worse as the night goes on.

I am quite happy to issue them when people come to notice during our op marble (night time economy policing), even more so when people fail the attitude test. There was one incident when a woman had been jumping on a sofa in the bar, she hit a speaker and damaged it. When approached by the management she refused to give her details saying that it was easily fixable and that she would do it. They did not want that being 11pm and semi dark so they took her outside to us, we explained that it was in her best interest to exchange details but she still refused, she did however say she would give her details if we dealt with it officially. As a result we had to issue a community resolution to her which was a massive pain in the rear and as a little present she got a S27 for her troubles, she was on a hen night and was not impressed, told her she should have listened and taken our original advice.

[crunchybits]

As a gen

Our supervisors will actively encourage us to dish out S27's at the first signs of trouble, the theory is that those causing trouble will only get worse as the night goes on.

I am quite happy to issue them when people come to notice during our op marble (night time economy policing), even more so when people fail the attitude test. There was one incident when a woman had been jumping on a sofa in the bar, she hit a speaker and damaged it. When approached by the management she refused to give her details saying that it was easily fixable and that she would do it. They did not want that being 11pm and semi dark so they took her outside to us, we explained that it was in her best interest to exchange details but she still refused, she did however say she would give her details if we dealt with it officially. As a result we had to issue a community resolution to her which was a massive pain in the rear and as a little present she got a S27 for her troubles, she was on a hen night and was not impressed, told her she should have listened and taken our original advice.

Why are you still policing using the 'attitude' test?? The attitude test is as much about the attitude, perceptions and prejudices of the officer, as it is about the offender / potential offender. Do you they not teach this anymore.
As a UK police officer you have power of 'discretion' which is rather different and is tied directly to you holding the office of constable

[MerseyLLB]

As a gen
Why are you still policing using the 'attitude' test?? The attitude test is as much about the attitude, perceptions and prejudices of the officer, as it is about the offender / potential offender. Do you they not teach this anymore.
As a UK police officer you have power of 'discretion' which is rather different and is tied directly to you holding the office of constable

The attitude test is a key part in effectively using discretion!

If a person commits a low-level road traffic offence, seems genuinely remorseful and gives a good reason in a polite manner - words of advice will likely suffice to act as a deterrent against them committing offence in the future,

If a person commits a low-level road traffic offence, tells you you are wasting their time and doesn't give any reason - words of advice are unlikely to suffice as a deterrent against them committing the offence in future - stick 'em on!

[Radman]

As a gen
Why are you still policing using the 'attitude' test?? The attitude test is as much about the attitude, perceptions and prejudices of the officer, as it is about the offender / potential offender. Do you they not teach this anymore.
As a UK police officer you have power of 'discretion' which is rather different and is tied directly to you holding the office of constable

Attitude test plays a key role in discretion - if someone is sorry, apologetic and willing to take responsibility for their actions then I will generally deal with them differently to folk who start mouthing off, become abusive, generally being arrogant and simply not willing to listen to my helpful advice...

It's a key part of policing and often a life lesson for people who simply have the common sense of a brick wall - i.e none.

Edited by Radman, 12 July 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[wanabe]

^ agreed

[SPC Mathew]

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.

I thought the same for England and wales.

[MerseyLLB]

I thought the same for England and wales.

Nope. It forms arrest criteria but few pieces of legislation actually require a person to furnish their name/address.. Interestingly it IS a specific offence to fail to provide name/address to a suitably designated PCSO... the law is craaazy in E&W

Edited by MerseyLLB, 13 July 2012 - 02:05 PM.

[Shogy1]

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.

I believe that you can use force to take the photograph. Section 64A Pace covers it.

[bobbiepeel]

regarding the S.27.

 

Does a simple arrest for a breach of the 27 show up on a PNC check - i assume its a 80 quid fine in the morning.

[Übèrnamè]

regarding the S.27.

 

Does a simple arrest for a breach of the 27 show up on a PNC check - i assume its a 80 quid fine in the morning.

I don't know for PNC checks but I do know that when we arrested for breach of section 27 it was an interview, charge, then court. So no PND.

[adslegend]

regarding the S.27.

 

Does a simple arrest for a breach of the 27 show up on a PNC check - i assume its a 80 quid fine in the morning.

 

The offence of breaching a S27 direction cannot be dealt with by PND, but often the evidence is there for a D&D offence (which can be dealt with by PND) so a can therefore be used as a sensible diversion from court if appropriate.
 

 

PNDs are recorded on PNC whether issued either as a result of arrest or on the street.

[bensonby]

if they are issued on the street you need to add it to PNC manually - don't forget! Ours get bounced back without an A/S number.

[adslegend]

if they are issued on the street you need to add it to PNC manually - don't forget! Ours get bounced back without an A/S number.

 

Perhaps I should have said "PNDs issued on the street should be recorded on PNC"

[Radman]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="bensonby" data-cid="2355568" data-time="1356794524"><p>
if they are issued on the street you need to add it to PNC manually - don't forget! Ours get bounced back without an A/S number.</p></blockquote>

Sec 27s are a Non-Recordable offence so will NOT appear on PNC as no A/S can be raised when someone is locked up for it (or reported.)

I had this issue when we gave someone bail conditions after breaching one, a special 'note' had to be added to their PNC record whilst they were on bail to court.

Edited by Radman, 01 January 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[GolfNovember90]

regarding the OP and description not being enough. s27 ammends s64A of PACE and allows you to take a photograph of the person being issued the notice, with or without their consent.

we tend to take photo's of everyone given one and mail it to the local officers mailing group via the blackberry. that way everyone thats working gets to see who's been issued one.

[adslegend]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="bensonby" data-cid="2355568" data-time="1356794524"><p>
if they are issued on the street you need to add it to PNC manually - don't forget! Ours get bounced back without an A/S number.</p></blockquote>

Sec 27s are a Non-Recordable offence so will NOT appear on PNC as no A/S can be raised when someone is locked up for it (or reported.)

I had this issue when we gave someone bail conditions after breaching one, a special 'note' had to be added to their PNC record whilst they were on bail to court.

 

I think he is referring to a D&D/S5 POA PND used as an alternative disposal for a breach of a S27 offence.

[Radman]

I think he is referring to a D&D/S5 POA PND used as an alternative disposal for a breach of a S27 offence.

Can breaching a Sec 27 Notice amount to being 'Drunk & Disorderly?'

 

I was always under the impression you couldnt issue Direction to Leave Notices to persons who are drunk for starters...

 

Saying that though I wouldnt think Disorderly behaviour would amount to entering an area you've been told not to enter, after all thats what the legislation for breaching the Sec 27 Notice is for isnt it?

Edited by Radman, 01 January 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[Burnie]

No but for the Sec 27 to have been issued they need to have been involved, or suspected to have been involved in alcohol related disorder.

What Bensonby is advocating is issuing a PND for the ORIGINAL disorder (whether it amounts to D&D, S5, Crim Dam or another PNDable offence etc.) which led to the S27 being issued in the first place.

Edited by Burnie, 01 January 2013 - 05:54 PM.

[Radman]

No but for the Sec 27 to have been issued they need to have been involved, or suspected to have been involved in alcohol related disorder.

What Bensonby is advocating is issuing a PND for the ORIGINAL disorder (whether it amounts to D&D, S5, Crim Dam or another PNDable offence etc.) which led to the S27 being issued in the first place.

 

 

Yes but that doesnt mean they have to have be drunk to be involved in alcohol related disorder - infact (im pretty sure of this) my force policy on Sec 27s is that a person cannot be drunk in order to issue them with one, so a D&D ticket would be out of the question, atleast in my opinion.

 

I suppose you could get round it if you issued them with a Sec 5 PND or another PND Offence.

[Chewie]

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.

 

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. 

Please, someone tell me that I've got this wrong...

S50 of the Police Reform Act gives us the power to demand name and address details of anyone acting, or believed to have been acting, in an anti-social manner.

 

S27 Violent Crime Reduction Act gives us a power to give a direction to leave to anyone involved in alcohol-related crime or disorder.

I think it's highly unlikely that anyone couldn't justify using the S50 power to demand details (if required) in any 'alcohol-related crime or disorder' situation.  "Acting in an antisocial manner" is brilliantly far-reaching and open to interpretation on so many levels that it's perfectly acceptable for any scenario I can think of  (Throwing cones around when under the influence?  Singing loudly late at night in a residential area?  Being a general numpty and annoying other club-goers?  All easily justifiable as antisocial behaviour.)  The S27 power is more restrictive than the S50 power in my opinion.
 

Edited by Chewie, 01 January 2013 - 10:19 PM.

[Übèrnamè]

Isn't anti-social behaviour defined as behaviour and/or words like to cause harassment, alarm and distress? (I know, still far fetching, but I believe that it is written down in the legislation.)

[Chewie]

Isn't anti-social behaviour defined as behaviour and/or words like to cause harassment, alarm and distress? (I know, still far fetching, but I believe that it is written down in the legislation.)

Yes, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.  The point still stands though... 

 

I also mentioned here that, amongst other things, "a constable who gives a direction under this section must make a record of the individual to whom it is given" - by not supplying their details, the individual is failing to comply with the terms of the S27 itself.

Edited by Chewie, 03 January 2013 - 04:34 PM.

[TroyTempest]

As a gen
Why are you still policing using the 'attitude' test?? The attitude test is as much about the attitude, perceptions and prejudices of the officer, as it is about the offender / potential offender. Do you they not teach this anymore.
As a UK police officer you have power of 'discretion' which is rather different and is tied directly to you holding the office of constable

 

Exactly, not to mention that some people who might be regarded has having "failed" the attitude test should still not be censured to any greater degree, as exercising discretion is as about balancing the needs of society and service to the law.  I've never understood how the "attitude" test as it is often described is HRA compliant.  

 

Two people stood next to each other, in the same scenario, one has a "bad" attitude, one doesn't, how is it proportionate to issue the gobby one a PND and let the other one go?

 

As crunchybits says, descretion isn't about projecting the fact that you don't like their attitude, it's about doing service to the law.

...oh and if you ever write down "the attitude test" or refer to it in court, or in diciplinary proceedings expect to be sanctioned, I've seen it happen.  

[Rob90]

Yes, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.  The point still stands though... 

 

I also mentioned here that, amongst other things, "a constable who gives a direction under this section must make a record of the individual to whom it is given" - by not supplying their details, the individual is failing to comply with the terms of the S27 itself.

This is not the case, there is no requirement in Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 s.27 for the recipient of a direction to leave to provide their details, and they do not have to provide them in order to receive a valid direction; much like the recording requirements for stop and search, you must record who the person was to the best of your ability, if that means recording their description, and taking their photograph, then so be it.  A direction is not invalidated if the person refuses details (indeed our forms instruct us to record description in the absence of name). Whilst it is arguable that you would have a power under Police Reform Act 2002 s.50 to make a requirement of someone to provide their details independently of the power to issue a direction to leave, the issuing of the direction is not incumbent upon them providing their details, and I would argue that it is counter productive to make too much of an issue of someone refusing to give you their details if you are issuing the direction for minor disorder where the most proportionate means of dealing with the person is to put an end to their presence in a particular area. 

[Chewie]

This is not the case...

I suggest you take a look at the post I linked to, where I quote the legislation which states that the officer must make a record of the individual to whom it is given (there's no mention that a description of the person is sufficient - indeed, unlike our stop & search forms, there's no space to record a description of the individual on our S27 forms).  However, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, S50PRA can also be utilised to obtain this information.

 

The S27 Direction not only saves us time in processing someone guilty of a low level offence, it also allows the recipient to go home and sleep in their own bed, instead of getting nicked and spending the night in a police cell.  If they're being uncooperative and evasive as to who they are, then I'd suggest that they're unlikely to comply with the direction to leave and are more suited to being arrested for whichever offence is most appropriate.

Edited by Chewie, 03 January 2013 - 05:59 PM.