Police rights

leitmotif

Hi all,

I'm not sure where else to post this. As 'Consumer Rights' contains the word 'rights', I thought maybe here.

Hypothetically, if the police arrest you, are they entitled to tell your family and your employer what they're arresting you for? This is a twofold question in a way, because I'd like to pose it for two separate scenarios: 1) you are released without charge; and 2) you are charged.

There's genuinely no background to this other than idle curiosity. I ain't done no crimes and that!

wealdroam

Probably best on one of the discussion boards.

How about...

The Money Saver Arms.

Not really consumer rights, is it?

Oliver14

You expecting to be arrested then?

leitmotif

wealdroam wrote: »

Probably best on one of the discussion boards.

How about...

The Money Saver Arms.

Not really consumer rights, is it?

Not strictly about anything on this forum. But there are a fair few people who are au fait with the rudiments of law here. I'm happy if the thread gets moved by the powers that be, but welcome any answers wherever it is.

Not expecting to get arrested though. :cool:

marywooyeah

leitmotif wrote: »

Hi all,

Hypothetically, if the police arrest you, are they entitled to tell your family and your employer what they're arresting you for? This is a twofold question in a way, because I'd like to pose it for two separate scenarios: 1) you are released without charge; and 2) you are charged.

There's genuinely no background to this other than idle curiosity. I ain't done no crimes and that!

Have a look at PACE 1984 and The Codes of Practice

michaelvintner

Innocence until proved guilty. The police so not decide guilt the courts do.

If you were arrested it may be a good idea to tell your employer but if you work for a company with any intelliegnt people in it nothing will happen until the courts have decided if you are innocence or guilty.

vicmorrow

michaelvintner wrote: »

Innocence until proved guilty. The police so not decide guilt the courts do.

If you were arrested it may be a good idea to tell your employer but if you work for a company with any intelliegnt people in it nothing will happen until the courts have decided if you are innocence or guilty.

Sorry, I don't think your post is very clear?

mo786uk

Not your family but some emploeyrs are notifiable udner the notifiable occupations scheme - i remember watching motorway cops and an NHS nurse was told his employers would be notified he has been drinking and driving i think.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2006/006-2006/

leitmotif

Thanks for the contributions guys. It was an article relating to some police raids on child !!!!!! suspects a few months ago that prompted my question. Although I'm dead against what the suspects may or may not have been involved in - and I can't stress that enough - I do believe in innocent until proven guilty and in punishment being meted out by the courts, not the police. The tone of the police in this particular case sounded very cavalier, like it was their God-given right to take over the retributive aspect of justice normally reserved for the courts (petty fines, penalties and cautions excepted). Check these quotes out:

'Superintendent Jason Hogg, head of Hampshire Constabulary's specialist investigations department, said: “We regularly receive and act on information about this kind of online activity. The possession and distribution of indecent images of children is not a victimless crime, and our priority is to safeguard and protect those children who are put as risk. [Fine so far.] Operation Trinity does so principally by disrupting the lives of those believed to be accessing this material and so upset the demand for it.” [Hmm, surely it should do so principally by charging any guilty parties and having the courts decide.] Police believe as many as 21 children have been safeguarded from potential direct harm as a result of the search. [Good.] Operation Trinity, which stretched as far as the Isle of Wight, was a coordinated response to information received by police, and none of the suspects are believed to be known by each other. “Our message is clear,” said D/Supt Hogg. “If you're accessing, downloading, sharing or distributing indecent images of children, you cannot hide from us. [Good.] As well as the police turning up on your doorstep in the early hours, offenders will have to live with the social stigma of the crime which can ruin lives, careers, and family relationships. [Good, because 'offenders' means those found guilty, right?] Suspects can be excluded from returning home, and we can share evidence of their supposed behaviour with their partners or employers. [Suspects? Not those found guilty but just suspected of it?]”'

I should add that in my spare time I do a lot of work for a counselling charity and regularly have to help pick up the pieces in cases where people's lives have been ruined by false accusations, this often being the worst type of accusation.

By the way, what prompted me to remember the article was another article, very recent (but can't find where I saw it) about a guy who was arrested for a similar offence, the police told his employer and he got the sack, but he was found not guilty, and he then successfully sued the police for effectively punishing him. That story reminded me of the above article, and I also started to wonder about what the police can do in all cases.

F_T_Buyer

You have some jobs that are "notifiable occupations", e.g. NHS working with kids that sort of stuff. I have to admit, it's a tricky situation - devastating if you are innocent, but the authorities need to be proactive.

A colleague of mine was caught for speeding a while back, and the officer, along with giving him a good lecture, said his employer would be notified - despite the police having no right in this case. This is why it was mentioned to me, of which I said "don't worry" - nowt to do with work (the employer was never notified of course, it was just a threat).

unholyangel

Usually in these kind of operations, they dont act rashly. We're not talking about someone making false accusations. We're talking about monitoring their online activity sometimes for months before making a move.

We're also not talking about people who have perhaps downloaded something else (even normal !!!!!!) only for it to be child !!!!!!. These people usually have at least a few thousand images. You do NOT acquire that many images by mistake.

I have a friend who used to work in this kind of stuff. Her job was to monitor online activity and some of the stuff she saw has stuck with her to this day, They have a very high depression rate in that line of work and well, i think thats perfectly understandable. It would be hard enough to watch an adult being forced, never mind a child.

We had one instance local to me where a partner was informed that her (then) boyfriend was convicted of posessing indecent images of children. The reason for informing her? Because she has kids. If they do not take appropriate steps to protect children, especially "at risk" children, they can be subject to an inquiry.

Although that being said, being found "not guilty" in scotland carries a lot more weight than it does in england. In scotland we have a third verdict of "not proven" which basically means there hasnt been enough evidence to find you guilty or innocent".