Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Acts of Parliament of predecessor
states to the United Kingdom

Acts of English Parliament to 1601
Acts of English Parliament to 1641
Ordinances and Acts (War & Interregnum) to 1660
Acts of English Parliament to 1699
Acts of English Parliament to 1706
Acts of Parliament of Scotland
Acts of Irish Parliament to 1700
Acts of Irish Parliament to 1800
Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom

1707–1719 | 1720–1739 | 1740–1759
1760–1779 | 1780–1800 | 1801–1819
1820–1839 | 1840–1859 | 1860–1879
1880–1899 | 1900–1919 | 1920–1939
1940–1959 | 1960–1979 | 1980–1999
2000–Present
Acts of the Scottish Parliament
Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament
Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly
Measures of the National Assembly for Wales
Orders in Council for Northern Ireland
United Kingdom Statutory Instruments

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) (1984 c. 60) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative framework for the powers of police officers in England and Wales to combat crime, as well as providing codes of practice for the exercise of those powers.[1] Part V1 [2] of PACE required the Home Secretary to issue Codes of Practice governing police powers. The aim of PACE has always been to establish a balance between the powers of the British Police and the rights of members of the public. Equivalent provision is made for Northern Ireland by the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1341).

Criminal liability may arise if the specific terms of the Act itself are not conformed to, whereas failure to conform to the codes of practice while searching, arresting, detaining or interviewing a suspect may lead to evidence obtained during the process becoming inadmissible in court.

PACE was significantly modified by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This replaced nearly all existing powers of arrest, including the category of arrestable offences, with a new general power of arrest for all offences.

PACE is applied not only to police officers but also (to a certain extent) to Customs and Excise officers[3] and to military investigations[4]. Further, any person with a duty of investigating offences or charging offenders is also required to follow the provisions of the PACE codes as far as practical and relevant.[5]

Contents

[edit] PACE Codes of Practice

The Home Office and the Cabinet Office announced a joint review of PACE and its codes of practice in May 2002, and on 31 July 2004, new PACE Codes of Practice came into effect.

  • PACE Code A: deals with the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest. It also deals with the need for a police officer to make a record of such a stop or encounter. [6]
  • PACE Code B: deals with police powers to search premises and to seize and retain property found on premises and persons.
  • PACE Code C: sets out the requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of people in police custody by police officers.
  • PACE Code D: concerns the main methods used by the police to identify people in connection with the investigation of offences and the keeping of accurate and reliable criminal records.
  • PACE Code E: deals with the tape recording of interviews with suspects in the police station.
  • PACE Code F: deals with the visual recording with sound of interviews with suspects.

On 1 January 2006 an additional code came into force.

  • PACE Code G: deals with statutory powers of arrest.

On 24 July 2006 a further code came into force.

  • PACE Code H: deals with the detention of terrorism suspects.

[edit] Case law

Since the passage of PACE, the courts have recognised the greater safeguards of civil liberties granted by the act.

In Osman v Southwark Crown Court (1999) [7], the search of Osman was held to be unlawful because the officers searching him did not give their names and station, contrary to PACE's requirements.[8]

In O'Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex (1998), the courts held that the entry of a premises to arrest O'Loughlin's wife for criminal damage was unlawful because under PACE, anyone present on the premises must be given the reason for entry.[9]

However, not all cases have gone against the police; in R v Longman (1988), it was held that the police entry of a premises to execute a search warrant for drugs was lawful, although deception had been utilised to gain entry, and upon entering, the police had not identified themselves or showed the warrant.[10]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Codes of Practice
  2. ^ Part VI of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  3. ^ Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 114
  4. ^ Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 113
  5. ^ Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 69(9). These include officers of the Serious Fraud Office (R v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, ex p. Saunders [1988] Crim LR 837), trading standards officers (Dudley MBC v Debenhams (1994) 159 JP 18), commercial investigators when interviewing an employee (Twaites and Brown (1990) 92 Cr App R 106), store detectives (Bayliss (1993) 98 Cr App R 235), Federation Against Copyright Theft investigators (Joy v Federation Against Copyright Theft [1993] Crim LR 588) and council officers[citation needed]. However such a duty is not owed by DTI inspectors appointed under sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 (Seelig and Spens [1992] 1 WLR 148), nor by prison officers (Martin Taylor [2000] EWCA Crim 2922).
  6. ^ Stop and Search under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
  7. ^ Osman v Southwark Crown Court
  8. ^ Martin, Jacqueline (2005). The English Legal System (4th ed.), p. 129. London: Hodder Arnold. ISBN 0-340-89991-3.
  9. ^ Martin, p. 133.
  10. ^ Martin, p. 132.

[edit] External links