Police Vs Cyclist

Wig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlXxrvGeq1Q

Section 24 PACE, says

3)If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

4)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.

(5)The reasons are—
(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

If he ran the red light, that is an offence of which the constable has reasonable grounds to believe he is guilty and if he won't say who he is then 5(a) allows the constable to arrest him in order to ascertain his identity.

The only wriggle room I can see here for the cyclist would be:
a) If running a red light on a cycle is not an offence.
b) If running a red light is not an arrrestable offence but S24 makes no distinction between different kinds of offence.

I can't see a) or b) being true... So I am left wondering what the cyclist knows that I don't know?

ado

I stopped watching after 44 s and the comments about being told to stay silent every time you speak to the police. Lawyer/solicitors etc don't give blanket advice like that but tailor their advice to the individual situation and evidence so sometimes silence/no comment is the right thing to do but a full account is advisable at other times.

RS2000.

Section 25 PACE would apply prior to SOCAP.

phill99

Cyclists that jump red lights should have their kneecaps broken.

EssexExile

Why argue with the policeman? He saw the cyclist jump a red light & it is totally within his power to do anything from a stern telling off to take it all the way to court. I'd be very nice to him in that situation.

Wig

Does anyone actually know who is right, police or cyclist?

I grant that the police does not know what he talking about, but that does not neccessarily mean he can't arrest the cyclist (if he knew what he was doing).

I grant that the cyclist is talking too much for someone who says he should not talk to the police.

RS2000.

Wig wrote: »

Does anyone actually know who is right, police or cyclist?

I grant that the police does not know what he talking about, but that does not neccessarily mean he can't arrest the cyclist (if he knew what he was doing).

I grant that the cyclist is talking too much for someone who says he should not talk to the police.

Commit an offence, refuse your details and you can be arrested.

matttye

Police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect he is guilty of an offence (because he saw it) and it is necessary to arrest him because the police officer does not know his name or address, as he refused to provide those details.

I am an accredited police station representative and advise people at the police station for a living. I would advise the cyclist his arrest was lawful in those circumstances.

Police officers do not have to know the exact wording of the law or what Act offences are contained within.

Cyclist is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

As far as I'm aware the officer cannot require the cyclist to produce a passport but if he has reason to doubt the name or address given, he could request sight of such a document for confirmation. Even if you provide your name or address, if the officer has reason to doubt the name or address given (i.e. the cyclist is being obstructive), he can still arrest.

The officer is allowed to use reasonable force to arrest the cyclist under s.117 PACE 1984, so the fact that the officer put hands on him is not unlawful violence if he was about the arrest the cyclist. The cyclist could actually be committing an offence of obstructing a police officer or resisting arrest by trying to avoid being arrested.

Norman_Castle

phill99 wrote: »

Cyclists that jump red lights should have their kneecaps broken.

Bit biased. Maybe all road users who jump red lights should have their kneecaps broken.

matttye

Also, unless I misheard, I think the officer said s.24A PACE entitled him to arrest but that actually covers citizen's arrests. s.24 PACE is arrest without warrant by a constable, as you confirmed in the OP.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

Police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect he is guilty of an offence (because he saw it) and it is necessary to arrest him because the police officer does not know his name or address, as he refused to provide those details.

I am an accredited police station representative and advise people at the police station for a living. I would advise the cyclist his arrest was lawful in those circumstances.

Police officers do not have to know the exact wording of the law or what Act offences are contained within.

Cyclist is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

As far as I'm aware the officer cannot require the cyclist to produce a passport but if he has reason to doubt the name or address given, he could request sight of such a document for confirmation. Even if you provide your name or address, if the officer has reason to doubt the name or address given (i.e. the cyclist is being obstructive), he can still arrest.

The officer is allowed to use reasonable force to arrest the cyclist under s.117 PACE 1984, so the fact that the officer put hands on him is not unlawful violence if he was about the arrest the cyclist. The cyclist could actually be committing an offence of obstructing a police officer or resisting arrest by trying to avoid being arrested.

Under what act and section? There is no requirement for a cyclist to have any documents.