Police Vs Cyclist

matttye

Cornucopia wrote: »

I appreciate that the Law can sometimes turn on the meaning of fiddly little details, but I think you're being unnecessarily pedantic.

There is no requirement to produce ID documentation at that stage. However, there is a requirement to state a valid name and address. There is also the possibility (if the Police are not satisfied with that name and address) that you can be asked to confirm it in some way, and/or be arrested so that it can be confirmed.

I would guess that there is a working assumption on the part of the Police and legislators that most people would prefer not to be arrested, but that's certainly negotiable if alleged offenders want it that way.

Correct.

However the officer's grounds for not believing the name and address given must be objectively reasonable (i.e. a reasonable, sensible person would come to the same conclusion). He can't just say he doesn't believe the information given because he feels like it.

The default stance of a lot of officers seems to be to arrest - at least in my experience. I have dealt with pensioners with very little in the way of previous convictions arrested at their home address at 5AM for petty offences when they quite clearly would have attended for a voluntary interview.

If the arrest is unlawful, the subsequent detention is also unlawful, so a custody sergeant or inspector will often listen to reason even if an arresting officer won't.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

I appreciate that the Law can sometimes turn on the meaning of fiddly little details, but I think you're being unnecessarily pedantic.

There is no requirement to produce ID documentation at that stage. However, there is a requirement to state a valid name and address. There is also the possibility (if the Police are not satisfied with that name and address) that you can be asked to confirm it in some way, and/or be arrested so that it can be confirmed.

I would guess that there is a working assumption on the part of the Police and legislators that most people would prefer not to be arrested, but that's certainly negotiable if alleged offenders want it that way.

At any stage.

BeenThroughItAll

Ultimately I don't think the legal standpoint is as important as the fact that, whether the copper was right or wrong to stop him, that cyclist sounds like a right argumentative, arrogant See You Next Tuesday.

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

At any stage.

At any stage... as long as you don't mind being arrested whilst they verify what information you do give them.

Cornucopia

matttye wrote: »

Correct.

However the officer's grounds for not believing the name and address given must be objectively reasonable (i.e. a reasonable, sensible person would come to the same conclusion). He can't just say he doesn't believe the information given because he feels like it.

I haven't got any direct experience of this, so it would be interesting to know what reasons would be acceptable.

The default stance of a lot of officers seems to be to arrest - at least in my experience. I have dealt with pensioners with very little in the way of previous convictions arrested at their home address at 5AM for petty offences when they quite clearly would have attended for a voluntary interview.

Yes, and the moral of this story is that the more often Police are given a hard time when making these kinds of very basic enquiries, the more likely it is that they will be more cautious in the future, resulting in possible over-reaction.

If the arrest is unlawful, the subsequent detention is also unlawful, so a custody sergeant or inspector will often listen to reason even if an arresting officer won't.

It looks from the video as if the Cyclist ended up getting himself arrested. I can't see that that would have been unlawful in the circumstances... if that's what you mean.

matttye

Cornucopia wrote: »

I haven't got any direct experience of this, so it would be interesting to know what reasons would be acceptable.

Yes, and the moral of this story is that the more often Police are given a hard time when making these kinds of very basic enquiries, the more likely it is that they will be more cautious in the future, resulting in possible over-reaction.

It looks from the video as if the Cyclist ended up getting himself arrested. I can't see that that would have been unlawful in the circumstances... if that's what you mean.

Whether reasons are acceptable will be judged on a case-by-case basis. One example could be if someone is drunk and has to think about it for a few seconds, or if someone uses a name that's blatantly fake such as Michael Mouse as indicated earlier.

No I wasn't suggesting the cyclist's arrest was unlawful; far from it. He gave the police officer reason to arrest him on a plate.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

Whether reasons are acceptable will be judged on a case-by-case basis. One example could be if someone is drunk and has to think about it for a few seconds, or if someone uses a name that's blatantly fake such as Michael Mouse as indicated earlier.

No I wasn't suggesting the cyclist's arrest was unlawful; far from it. He gave the police officer reason to arrest him on a plate.

But you'll know fine well you can call yourself anything you like. A person with no previous convictions could give the name Mickey Mouse and be arrested and convicted under that name. As long as he hasn't given the name to alter the outcome of any dealings he has with the police (wanted or to hide a previous caution to allow another instead of charge) or to pervert the course of justice he commits no offence. You could be John Smith in day to day life and Mickey Mouse every time your stopped either walking or cycling.

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

But you'll know fine well you can call yourself anything you like. A person with no previous convictions could give the name Mickey Mouse and be arrested and convicted under that name. As long as he hasn't given the name to alter the outcome of any dealings he has with the police (wanted or to hide a previous caution to allow another instead of charge) or to pervert the course of justice he commits no offence. You could be John Smith in day to day life and Mickey Mouse every time your stopped either walking or cycling.

I didn't say he would commit an offence I said it may give the officer reasonable grounds to doubt the information given.

Herzlos

RS2000. wrote: »

Section 164 covers production of documents and since cycles and pedestrians lack a motor it sort of makes them exempt from the act.

"sort of?"

RS2000.

Herzlos wrote: »

"sort of?"

You don't agree, so how about backing up your statement where you said ID is required as part of the process?