Infringements Of Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) In Steve’s Case
Overview of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
The police officers play a leading role in shielding some of the most basic human rights among the citizens. The police are usually the custodians of right to freedom, as well as security, plus protect the right to life, the definitive right of humans. In attempting to safeguard the rights of the mainstream, the officers at times breach some individual rights, like right to privacy or the right to freedom of movement along with association. Nonetheless, the police are only allowed to do so provided the violation is reasonable, balanced, as well as legal. Yet, evidence has demonstrated that some police are employing their privileges excessively indicating that stopping along with searching persons in a manner, which is discriminatory, inefficient, as well as a squander of public resources. The mainstream of searches in England plus Wales is carried under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE): about 1 million annually contrasted to 256,000 searches in 2008/9 as provided in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. PACE is the law where the majority of stops and searches are presently performed. The law was created after the repeal of a mess of differing powers by entity police to stop as well as search individuals comprising contentious “sus” regulations that permitted the police to detain somebody basically for being a “suspected individual”. Accordingly, stop and search under the stipulations of PACE is too utilized more disproportionately against the people of colour (Blacks) as compared to those carried under the provisions of Terrorism Act 2000. Therefore, under PACE, the power to stop in addition to search people whom they suppose of entailed in criminal activity is a vital strategy.
Accordingly, stop plus search has been expansively employed in line to knife offence. In the case of Steve, the stop and search were performed founded on the provisions of the PACE as the search and stop were reasonable because he was suspected by the police of possessing a knife, which was true. The arrest never violated any provisions of PACE; however, being a minor-15 years old-the process he was subjected was contrary to the provisions of PACE. The most violation in the case of Steve was that he denied a legal advisor given the fact that he was a minor and deserved a counsel to represent him in the case. The paper will investigate the infringement of PACE in the case of Steve and provide a clear procedure on how the case should be handled by the police officers from the time of arrest through to trial.
Infringement of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
Before PACE legitimate authorities to search came into existence in a different home and nationwide law existed. PACE law in the field of searches pursued on the footsteps of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (1981) that had drawn consideration to the challenges in the utilization of searches in addition to presented recommendations consequently. The law contracted novel powers using for searches of individuals and cars stolen or illegal articles, plus these were tailored to be apparent, as well as to apply nationally. PACE integrated protections, which incorporated the need for rational suspicion, the provisions of grounds for police acts, and the conclusion of a written record and publication of search statistics. As a result, the new law followed the overall fortitude of the act, with its settled objective of balancing the rights of the detainee against the call to deal with crime. While defining rational doubt, the act makes comprehensible that this must have an understandable along with objective base, as well as must not entail any stereotypical targeting of specific groups. In addition, the PACE has never affected the police’s current right to perform voluntary searches, the present PACE Code makes it apparent in which this must be performed in an apparent, as well as transparent manner.
The denial of legal advisor amounted to the infringement of the PACE provisions where the rights of the suspect (Steve) was violated. Steve was a minor and the law under the provisions of the PACE was entitled to a legal advisor while being interviewed by the police officers. Therefore, the police officers violated his fundamental rights of having the right to be allowed to have a legal advisor owing the fact that he was a minor and could not be interviewed alone because the age could not allow the police to do so. Section 56 and58 of the PACE offers the suspect or captive the right to confer with an attorney, in confidential. Section 58 of PACE establishes some of the details in line with the right to advice, especially for those the age of 18 years. Paragraph 6.8, for instance, claims that a suspect (with various specific exceptions, in this case, Steve is under the age of 18 years) will be entitled on request to have a legal advisor nearby when they will be interviewed. Thus, the legal advice to “minors” suspects is vital in that the legal rights of the suspects are best guaranteed by the existence of legal advisor in the police station, as well as an interview of a lawful advisor. PACE requires that the legal advisor should have experience of working with minors who are always vulnerable suspects. However, PACE holds that the existence of appropriate adult (AA) is not sufficient alternative for legal counsel, though an AA can assist to gate the legal counsel. This was not the case in Steve’s case since he was denied the right to legal advisor and the police officers decided to interview him alone despite his request to have a legal advisor. The legal advisor was essential in the case of Steve since he was a minor a needed legal assistance from an attorney and was not allowed by the police even after his request. This was a clear infringement of the PACE that requires suspects being interviewed to have an attorney to represent him as he was still under the age of 18 years.
PACE also requires that the suspect to be accorded some care while in the police cells where the conditions under which are detained should be human and should not undermine the health condition of the suspect. The suspect is usually entitled to a certain degree of care whilst in the police custody. This is established in section 8 of PACE Code C, where the cell should be warm, clean, as well as well-it. This is a general welfare in which the suspect must be exposed to. In the case of Steve, the police officers violated this provision because Steve was kept in a cell that was cold, damp and dark. This cell condition was not up to the level of section 8 of the PACE where this infringed the rights as provided by the act. This became an apparent infringement of PACE under section 8 where Steve was exposed to extreme conditions that were likely to negatively impact his health in the long-run. Therefore, Steve denial for safe and healthy environment apparently violated the provisions of the PACE 1984 Act.
A police interview with the potential suspect is very frequently decisive aspects of the analytical procedure. Thus, the interview with the police would usually be undertaken by the main investigating officer entailed in the particular case. Consequently, section 11 of PACE Code C has the universal stipulations that relate to the police interview that is described as the inquiring of the individual concerning their participation or alleged participation in a criminal transgression. The police officer conducting the interview should ensure that the suspect is given ample time, comparatively slow speed, adequate breaks along with pauses, and permitting abundant of time for establishing relationship. Therefore, in the case of Steve, the interview session violated the provision of the PACE that needed the interview to be carried out while respecting the suspect privacy and also establishing a good rapport to promote a fruitful interview with the suspect. In the case of Steve, the primary violation was the failure of the police officers to complete a written record concerning the suspicion case at hand. In addition, PACE requires that the arresting authority or police officers should have a written record following the stop and search act that was successful. In addition, during the time in the police cells to the interview, the police presented no copy of written record regarding the offence that Steve had committed that is, found with a knife. The right to privacy was violated in the case of Steve since PACE requires that the suspect should be accorded privacy while being interviewed. Steve was interviewed by the police officers in an open in a bench outside the police cells. This act by the police to interview Steve in an open violated his right to privacy as provided by the PACE. Therefore, the interview exposed the suspect that implies that the interview was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of PACE infringing the provisions of the act.
First, the police authorities could have ensured that the cells are warm, well-lit, and clean to guarantee the health safety of the Steve. The police officers could have ensured that the conditions of the cell are human before putting into custody the suspect. The officers have the role of ensuring that suspects are accorded the highest health conditions that will not affect their health. Therefore, the cell conditions could be improved following the arrest of Steve.
Second, the police officers could have ensured that Steve gets a legal advisor to represent him during the interview being an investigative process. They should have provided legal advice through an appropriate attorney rather than interviewing Steve alone and the issue that was a concern here that needed legal advice was that Steve was a minor. PACE requires that minors and other vulnerable groups should be provided with legal advice to represent his interests. The minors are treated as children and there was the need to provide legal advisor while he was being interviewed. There is the need to give police the responsibility to request legal counsel for any detainee who is considered vulnerable like in the case of Steve, whether or not the suspect has requested the advice of the legal expert. This would make sure that the suspect’s legitimate rights are safeguarded by the process.
Third, the interview process should be carried out in a private place that will guarantee the suspect to be open. In the case of Steve, the interview was carried in an open place, particularly in a bench outside the cells that did not guarantee the privacy of the suspect. The privacy environment that the suspect will be interviewed should not subjective where it will promote a good rapport amid the suspect and the interviewer. The police should always make sure that they interview the suspect in a private setting to promote the reliability and accuracy of the information that will be recorded to be used in the court against the suspect.
Conclusions
The PACE has come under criticisms in the last few years in that the police use their powers exceedingly to undermine the rights of the suspect. In many instances, police have been criticised for using PACE to undermine the fundamental the rights of particular groups, such as the people of colour. The case of Steve represents a perfect where the police failed to comply with the provisions of PACE, particularly on privacy and interview, provide legal advisor and health conditions in the cells that infringed the rights of Steve as provided under PACE. Therefore, there is the need to provide all police forces with proper training, especially guardianship officers on techniques of presenting warning along with legal advice with optimum clarity. This will improve the welfare of suspects and ensure that the police observe the PACE.
Bland, N., Miller, J. & Quinton, P. Managing the Use and Impact of Searches: A review of force interventions. (Police Research Series paper 132, London: Home Office, 2000b).
Bland, N., Miller, J. & Quinton, P. Upping the PACE? An evaluation of the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report on stops and searches. (Police Research Series paper 128, London: Home Office, 2000a).
Bridges, L. & Cape, E, Flying in the Face of the Evidence (London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King’s College, 2008).
Burton, M., Evans, R. & Sanders, AAn evaluation of the use of special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, (Home Office Findings 270, London: Home Office, 2006).
Fenner, S., Gudjonsson, G.H. & Clare, I.C.H. ‘Understanding of the Current Police Caution (England and Wales) Among Suspects in Police Detention’, (2002) 12 Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 83-93.
Fenwick, H. Civil Liberties and Human Rights (Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish, 4th ed, 2007).
Gudjonsson, G.H., Hayes, G.D. & Rowlands, P. ‘Fitness to be interviewed and psychological vulnerability: the views of doctors, lawyers and police officers’, (2000) 11The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 1,74-92.
Leggett, J., Goodman, W. & Dinani, S. (2007) ‘People with learning disabilities’ experiences of being interviewed by the police’, (2007) 135 British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 168-173.
Medford, S., Gudjonsson, G. & Pearse, J. ‘The efficacy of the appropriate adult safeguard during police interviewing’, (2003) 8, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 253-266.
Newburn, T. & Hayman, S, Policing, Surveillance and Social Control: CCTV and Police Monitoring of Suspects (Cullompton: Willan, 2002).
Pattenden, R. & Skinns, L. ‘Choice, Privacy and Publicly Funded Legal Advice at Police Stations’, (2010) 73,The Modern Law Review, 3; 349-370.
Sanders, A. & Young, R. Criminal justice (Oxford: OUP, 3rd ed, 2007).
Skinns, L, ‘”Let s get it over with”: Early Findings on the Factors Affecting Detainees’ Access to Custodial Legal Advice’ (2009) 19 Policing and Society 58;78-108.
Thanki, B. The Law of Privilege (Oxford: OUP, 2006).
Verdun-Jones, S. & Tijerino, A. A Review of Brydges Duty Counsel Services in Canada (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2004).
Wasik, M. Core Statutes on Criminal Justice & Sentencing 2018-19. (London : Red Globe Press, 2018).