Police Vs Cyclist

matttye

Guest101 wrote: »

I see your point. I imagine it's to do with being under arrest. As opposed to the tv licensing example.

But the theory of what you say seems correct

Volunteers should be given the same information as detainees. Their rights are slightly different though, e.g. they have a right to leave the police station at any time and must be told of that right and the fact that they are not under arrest.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

Volunteers should be given the same information as detainees. Their rights are slightly different though, e.g. they have a right to leave the police station at any time and must be told of that right and the fact that they are not under arrest.

And when they do try and leave they can be arrested, kind of makes a mockery of things don't it?

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

And when they do try and leave they can be arrested, kind of makes a mockery of things don't it?

It does. The police should not do that, as s29(b) states that if a decision is taken not to allow a suspect to leave at will they must be immediately arrested.

So if a constable decides "I'm going to arrest this guy if he leaves" - technically he must arrest them there and then.

There's a case of Richardson v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2011] which confirms that volunteers should not be routinely arrested. The claimant in that case was awarded damages from the police for an unlawful arrest when he turned up for an interview by appointment. The High Court held that the arrest was not necessary and therefore unlawful.

Guest101

matttye wrote: »

Volunteers should be given the same information as detainees. Their rights are slightly different though, e.g. they have a right to leave the police station at any time and must be told of that right and the fact that they are not under arrest.

Yes, but tv licensing can't arrest them.

matttye

Guest101 wrote: »

Yes, but tv licensing can't arrest them.

They still need to be told they are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time.

Guest101

matttye wrote: »

They still need to be told they are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time.

Think my approach of saying nothing is best

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

It does. The police should not do that, as s29(b) states that if a decision is taken not to allow a suspect to leave at will they must be immediately arrested.

So if a constable decides "I'm going to arrest this guy if he leaves" - technically he must arrest them there and then.

There's a case of Richardson v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2011] which confirms that volunteers should not be routinely arrested. The claimant in that case was awarded damages from the police for an unlawful arrest when he turned up for an interview by appointment. The High Court held that the arrest was not necessary and therefore unlawful.

He may only come to that decision when the suspect goes to leave, then it may become necessary to arrest them as their voluntary attended in not practical alternative to arrest.

Kind of different to Richardson when the West Midlands continued the practice of nicking people in the front office.

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

He may only come to that decision when the suspect goes to leave, then it may become necessary to arrest them as their voluntary attended in not practical alternative to arrest.

Kind of different to Richardson when the West Midlands continued the practice of nicking people in the front office.

I agree, just saying the officer should arrest the volunteer the moment he decides he's not allowed to leave.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

I agree, just saying the officer should arrest the volunteer the moment he decides he's not allowed to leave.

That's often not until they don't like answering the questions that will convict them.

They're told that they are not under arrest and free to leave at any time. But never told but only when I have completed my agenda and if you try and leave before that I will arrest you.

Guest101

RS2000. wrote: »

That's often not until they don't like answering the questions that will convict them.

They're told that they are not under arrest and free to leave at any time. But never told but only when I have completed my agenda and if you try and leave before that I will arrest you.

So better to say nothing?

I'm not trying to rehash this. But it seems the safe option.