29 replies to this topic

[Shikari]

This could be in either Scenario City or here I think.

Anyway, due to my impending attestation and future unleashed upon the public i've become fairly paranoid about arrest necessites under s24 of PACE. I think some of it has stemmed from watching episodes of Street Crime UK or whatever fly-on-the-wall you like. It's where you get people who are drunk and are commit offences like s5. POA or drunk and disorderly (essentially they're being loud, swearing, and may or may not be being agressive). What if they give you their name and address but you can't/decide not to issue them with Public Order Notice/FPN or a summons so decide to arrest them.

What would the arrest criteria be? Prompt and effective investigation? or maybe prevent prosecution being hindered by disappearence? Just as a simple, (almost) catch all necessity.

It just seems to me that in these documentaries etc. people are locked up over night to sober up before being issued an FPN in the morning, but what, assuming they've given their name/address, is the neccessity for this?

I think I just need someone to point out the obvious because i'm actually quite worried about making an unlawful arrest and I think it's preventing me from seeing the wood for the trees. Some help with this would be really appreciated. It's been on my mind for ages and I keep talking myself out of understanding it.

Edited by Shikari, 19 July 2012 - 02:13 AM.

[HerrComm]

Prevent further offences against public decency could be argued, depending on the state of your DP. Edit: Also if memory serves you cannot report someone for summons at that time if they are under the influence of alcohol in any case.

Edited by HerrComm, 19 July 2012 - 02:57 AM.

[Morph78]

I'm glad someone has posted this topic, as I too am about to have my final training weekend and attestation end of the month and starting to become concerned about getting stuff wrong in the real world.

Could you argue at least these as well:

• Prevent physical injury to themselves or others
  
• Prevent causing loss or damage to property (if you reasonably believe there may be criminal damage caused through their behaviour and/or surroundings)
  
• Causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway (again depends on where they are at the time and willingness to move)

[Mikester]

protect public or self also.



but if they're drunk and disorderly can you go for sec 27 dispersal instead? that way if they break that then your grounds for arrest are more solid? round here locking everyone up who is a bell piece is a not the best strategy on safer nights as custody would be full in no time. leaving no space for 'proper' crims so i guess using more discretion than normal is required.

[Buck]

You have to be careful with Sec27 though. You can't give it to someone who doesn't understand it i.e. too drunk!

I wouldn't worry about Necessities too much, if you feel an arrest is necessary in your head then the chance are you can make one of them fit.

As pointed out above for a Sec5 or D&D you can take a pick from several depending on the situation.

[Prolixia]

It's an excellent question Shikari, and you might find this thread interesting.

In my force we can't issued PNDs on the street (they have to be done in custody) so finding a necessity for S.5 offences is even more important.

[Sharpe]

It's an excellent question Shikari, and you might find this thread interesting.

In my force we can't issued PNDs on the street (they have to be done in custody) so finding a necessity for S.5 offences is even more important.

What, at all??

[Prolixia]

What, at all??

Not generally, no. To some extent that rather defeats the object, doesn't it?

[Potious]

Neccessity for S.5 really depends on the demeanour of the suspect...if they're still aggressive then report for process may not be suitable therefore prompt & effective may suffice. However, if you witness the offence and the suspect is calm and you're happy with their details then a report for process would be more appropriate. It really depends on the scenario to be honest.
D&D's are usually to prevent physical injuries to themselves or others or loss/damage to property. Remember, you do not interview for D&D since an officers witness statement evidencing the disorderly behaviour maybe enough. Hence it's always useful to only arrest for D&D if you witness the offence and in your opinion they're drunk.
I hope this helps.

[General Purpose]

This could be in either Scenario City or here I think.

Anyway, due to my impending attestation and future unleashed upon the public i've become fairly paranoid about arrest necessites under s24 of PACE. I think some of it has stemmed from watching episodes of Street Crime UK or whatever fly-on-the-wall you like. It's where you get people who are drunk and are commit offences like s5. POA or drunk and disorderly (essentially they're being loud, swearing, and may or may not be being agressive). What if they give you their name and address but you can't/decide not to issue them with Public Order Notice/FPN or a summons so decide to arrest them.

What would the arrest criteria be? Prompt and effective investigation? or maybe prevent prosecution being hindered by disappearence? Just as a simple, (almost) catch all necessity.

It just seems to me that in these documentaries etc. people are locked up over night to sober up before being issued an FPN in the morning, but what, assuming they've given their name/address, is the neccessity for this?

I think I just need someone to point out the obvious because i'm actually quite worried about making an unlawful arrest and I think it's preventing me from seeing the wood for the trees. Some help with this would be really appreciated. It's been on my mind for ages and I keep talking myself out of understanding it.

Prompt and Effective investigation by tape recorded interview
Prevent them causing physical harm to themselves or others.
Protect public decency


You can't issue someone with a PND who is drunk, as they won't understand and that then brings up a defence in Court, same with reporting someone for summons - they're drunk, they don't know what's going on! But before you arrest, ask the following: "Where are you?"; "What have I arrested you for?"; "What's your name?" and can they walk, stand and talk properly? If not, they're not going in a cell...

[HerrComm]

You can't issue someone with a PND who is drunk, as they won't understand and that then brings up a defence in Court, same with reporting someone for summons - they're drunk, they don't know what's going on! But before you arrest, ask the following: "Where are you?"; "What have I arrested you for?"; "What's your name?" and can they walk, stand and talk properly? If not, they're not going in a cell...

ehmmmm....

Good post though, nothing worse then getting a body bounced from custody to hospital because they're D&I

Edited by HerrComm, 19 July 2012 - 01:19 PM.

[TCambs]

To throw a spanner in the works, I would say not being able to report / PND is not enough for 'prompt and effective investigation' as, if you were otherwise planning to report / PND then there is no need for further investigation. You could say you want to interview but for something like D&D and even arguably S5 it isn't really necessary. If someone is p***ed but is able to give you their name and address what's to stop you going round and doing it in the morning? There is no necessity to arrest in order to just charge or otherwise dispose.

On a slightly unrelated topic, do you have to tell someone they are reported for an offence in order to actually submit the file for summons? Obviously if you're with them at the time it's good practice to do so but is it necessary? I mean it's done all the time for traffic offences... My point being if you want to report someone for D&D but they're too drunk to understand they're being reported, does it matter?

[Potious]

To throw a spanner in the works, I would say not being able to report / PND is not enough for 'prompt and effective investigation' as, if you were otherwise planning to report / PND then there is no need for further investigation. You could say you want to interview but for something like D&D and even arguably S5 it isn't really necessary. If someone is p***ed but is able to give you their name and address what's to stop you going round and doing it in the morning? There is no necessity to arrest in order to just charge or otherwise dispose.

On a slightly unrelated topic, do you have to tell someone they are reported for an offence in order to actually submit the file for summons? Obviously if you're with them at the time it's good practice to do so but is it necessary? I mean it's done all the time for traffic offences... My point being if you want to report someone for D&D but they're too drunk to understand they're being reported, does it matter?

What is the point of reporting someone for D&D? They are drunk and being disorderly, they don't have the mental capacity at the time to understand you, so for their own safety and others, they must come in. Unless they aren't drunk enough, so you can use your discretion.

[TCambs]

What is the point of reporting someone for D&D? They are drunk and being disorderly, they don't have the mental capacity at the time to understand you, so for their own safety and others, they must come in. Unless they aren't drunk enough, so you can use your discretion.

The 'point' would be when an arrest necessity doesn't exist. IE they have calmed down and say are with sober friends who will look after said person.

What I'm saying is an inability to understand due to intoxication is not a necessity in itself, and nor would it come under prompt and effective investigation if all you're doing is chucking them in a cell to be charged / PNDed in the morning.

[Kilo Sierra]

I think that some folks are trying to over complicate matters.

S.27 can't be issued if the person is too drunk to understand, same as PNDs. If they are too drunk for those disposals, they can be dealt with by means of drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable (depending on level of drunkiness). This is all things considered of course, if they just unlawfully kicked a window in, they are still getting arrested for Criminal Damage.

So once we have a offence, we need a neccessity as well.

Drunk lads run up to a random high street shop, giggle and point abit and start kicking the windows in, progressing up the street, City CCTV calls Police and the youths are arrested as they are starting shop front 3. one youth is clever than the other and gives his details, the other thinks pretending his name is RINGO STAR from MARS is a winning idea.....

Offence + Neccessity = Lawful Arrest
(S.1 Crim.Dam) + I+L (A+N??) = Custody...as an example

S.24 PACE 1984-

I - Investigation (to allow prompt and effective of the offence/conduct of the person)

D - Disappearance - prevent hindrance of prosecution by disappearance of suspect

C - Child (Protect child/vunerable other)

O - Obstruction of highway (prevent)

P - Physical injury (prevent)

P - Public decency (prevent commission of offence against)

L - Loss/damage to property (prevent)

A - Address (of suspect not known/doubted)

N - Name (of suspect not known/doubted)

Temper this above information with some puppy walking time once you are fresh out of training and you should be fully to grips with your powers before getting signed off.

PND and summons will be covered in seperate, on-division training, but revolve around admittal of the offences and knowing details about the offender (suspect...) to have a reasonable ability to track them down or little chance of them doing one! Also the method of disposal depends on the seriousness of the offence. Some force and national policy also plays a part.

E.g Little Sally who is 18 and likes whitelightening cidre (other brands available) and listering to HipHop whilst sporting the latest fake matching tracksuit, wanders into the local bargain discount store, which sounds abit like M&Ms, but less chocolate based.
In the store, she steals 2 bottles of the heavenly cidre, and sticks them up her gold tracksuit. Where she then is seen by the store detective, walking past the last point of sale and out of the store without paying, she is detained by the store detective and the Police are called.
Sally, never having been involved in anything of a like nature, admitts she stole the items (which are recovered safe and well and are sitting with the store detective, who has lined up the relevent CCTV, showing the selection and consealment). She is known for some minor historic Anti-social behaviour and is still living at the address with her parents (who prefer StrongBow).
Sally has no means of payment for these items, though has a part time job. The store has a policy of supporting any Police investigations and prosections.

Sally would be suitable for a PND....if she had been issued 1 within 12 months though, she or didn't own up to it, she could happily be arrested.

Help? That was my first ever arrest (details changed to protect those invovled) and first ever insight into other disposal means. The cidre was wine and beer coming to £7.79 though i do recall.

Enjoy the attestation lads, you'll be fine on division, if you keep to the values you displayed last time.

J

Edited by Kilo Sierra, 19 July 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[Shikari]

Cheers KS.

I can't wait, but I just want to get it right.

[TCambs]

Don't know what it's like in your force, KS, but you don't need an admission to issue a PND or report for process.

[Potious]

The 'point' would be when an arrest necessity doesn't exist. IE they have calmed down and say are with sober friends who will look after said person.

What I'm saying is an inability to understand due to intoxication is not a necessity in itself, and nor would it come under prompt and effective investigation if all you're doing is chucking them in a cell to be charged / PNDed in the morning.

I don't think I shall be hanging around for him to sober up mate, he can sober up in custody whilst I have my cuppa and write my statement, if his mates are around to look after him, as long as we've only D&D on the table then that would be one of the factors I shall consider... Having his mates around him doesn't guarantee that he wouldn't commit further offences...
Prompt & effective is not the only necessity out there...causing physical injuries to himself and others, causing loss/ damage to property or even preventing offences against public decency may suffice.

[Shikari]

I think I just had an epiphany. If someone's so drunk they can't be given a PND etc. then prevent causing/suffering physical harm. Tell the custody sgt. you need him to be detained so he can sober up, not be a danger to himself/calm down, and be issued a PND etc. when he's not three-sheets-to-the-wind.

Am I on the right lines (assuming there are no other clear necessitys, a straight up BoP/s5./s4a)

[Kilo Sierra]

Don't know what it's like in your force, KS, but you don't need an admission to issue a PND or report for process.

<insert> "its best to have it", as otherwise it still has to go to court (within 21day IIRC)...bit misleading that really.

I'm not favouritable towards issuing something I know they will refuted unless i can get away with something else, as it will just come back and cause me work and drag out the affaire. Obviously as things like setting fireworks off outside of the relevent time frame is a PND offence, i'm not likely to arrest for that to say the least, so would issue in that instance, admittal or not.

So yeah, bit of a slip there into personal preferrence, good spot.

Inititally, you won't really be in a position to get it too wrong, as your mentor/reg you are crewed with should keep you on the right path. Worry less, enjoy and learn more mate.

[TCambs]

Yep, for a D&D protection of self and others is what I use.

I don't think I shall be hanging around for him to sober up mate, he can sober up in custody whilst I have my cuppa and write my statement, if his mates are around to look after him, as long as we've only D&D on the table then that would be one of the factors I shall consider... Having his mates around him doesn't guarantee that he wouldn't commit further offences...
Prompt & effective is not the only necessity out there...causing physical injuries to himself and others, causing loss/ damage to property or even preventing offences against public decency may suffice.

I'm trying to think about it more academically than practically.

But you have to crack the tough nut of 'believing' an arrest is necessary, the higher level of certainty than suspicion. If someone has calmed down and is with sober friends and you have no reason to believe they're going to injure themselves or anyone then you're stuck. Oh, and I tried 'to prevent an offence against public decency' when some drunk woman insisted on loudly proclaiming how much of a c**t I was but was looked at in aghast by the custody skipper and was asked to reconsider! I don't know the definition of an offence against public decency is, but that apparently isn't it!

I'm not favouritable towards issuing something I know they will refuted unless i can get away with something else, as it will just come back and cause me work and drag out the affaire. Obviously as things like setting fireworks off outside of the relevent time frame is a PND offence, i'm not likely to arrest for that to say the least, so would issue in that instance, admittal or not.

And if the investigation was concluded enough for you to issue a PND, then you'd prob be struggling for an arrest criteria and would have to report.

[Kilo Sierra]

But you have to crack the tough nut of 'believing' an arrest is necessary, the higher level of certainty than suspicion. If someone has calmed down and is with sober friends and you have no reason to believe they're going to injure themselves or anyone then you're stuck. Oh, and I tried 'to prevent an offence against public decency' when some drunk woman insisted on loudly proclaiming how much of a c**t I was but was looked at in aghast by the custody skipper and was asked to reconsider! I don't know the definition of an offence against public decency is, but that apparently isn't it!

I'd hazard a guess that was discounted that you, by your presence and interaction casued the offence.

And if the investigation was concluded enough for you to issue a PND, then you'd prob be struggling for an arrest criteria and would have to report.

Probably, like certainly, but not as 100% coverage don't forget the various force rules and guidence on them adding in curve balls.

[TCambs]

I'd hazard a guess that was discounted that you, by your presence and interaction casued the offence.

I don't see why. The offence was ongoing (and unprovoked), tried to usher her on her way several times which eventually led to her arrest.

Probably, like certainly, but not as 100% coverage don't forget the various force rules and guidence on them adding in curve balls.

Indeed!

[SkinSte]

I don't see why. The offence was ongoing (and unprovoked), tried to usher her on her way several times which eventually led to her arrest.



Indeed!

For public decency, think along the lines of the offence outraging public decency. Shouting out ###### is very unlikely to meet that high thresh-hold, just the same as "simple" public urination is not outraging public decency.

[General Purpose]

ehmmmm....

Good post though, nothing worse then getting a body bounced from custody to hospital because they're D&I

Yep. If someone comes into the custody where I work, they are the questions they get asked before the booking in process starts. If they fail, they go to A&E...