Police Vs Cyclist

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

All the Policeman really needed to do was (a) remain calm, and (b) stick with the Law as written. He was in the right, but by departing from the Law, he made it look to the Cyclist and viewers of the video as if he did not know what he was talking about at all, when in fact he had the right idea, but lacked the detail.

IIUC, and this may be the source of the Cyclist's confusion, it used to be the case that you could only be compelled to produce/verify your details if the Police were concerned about an arrestable offence. This is not now the case, and the more general rules stated above apply.

There is an interesting tangent to this which I have come across in the course of dealing with TV Licensing matters.

Although TVL Search Warrants are very rare, the odd one does crop up. Most of the time, at least 2 TVL operatives are supported by at least 2 Police officers. All of them have right of entry under the legislation. However, TVL obviously require a name for any potential summons (and a SW does not require a name).

So... the TVL people can find themselves with an alleged offence in evidence, and an alleged offender in front of them who is refusing to give their name. What should they/the Police do?

- Should the Police take the word of TVL that an offence has been committed, if the Police lack the knowledge to know for sure? And then use that alleged offence as justification for compelling the name, and potentially arresting the alleged offender?

- Should they search the premises for any documentation that might provide a name, even though there is no direct link to guarantee that any found name belongs to the alleged offender? (This action would be outside the terms of the Search Warrant).

- Should they walk away and not open up such a can of worms?

No that's wrong it applied to summary only offences too.

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

Not always, so be careful of the advice you give considering you claim to have legal training.

I'm generalising.

Nothing I'm posting on here is advice.

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

No that's wrong it applied to summary only offences too.

Okay, thanks.

IANAL, but that (old) reading of the Law seems quite common amongst internet folk.

Iceweasel

'Can of Worms' doesn't even begin to describe these type of confrontational problems.

matttye

RS2000. wrote: »

No that's wrong it applied to summary only offences too.

Summary only offences are still arrestable. summary only simply means that the case will be dealt with in the magistrates court. It affects certain police powers as well eg s.18 searches.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Okay, thanks.

IANAL, but that (old) reading of the Law seems quite common amongst internet folk.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

RS2000.

matttye wrote: »

Summary only offences are still arrestable. summary only simply means that the case will be dealt with in the magistrates court. It affects certain police powers as well eg s.18 searches.

Well if you're being pedantic about it it was neve as simple as that was it?

Serious arrestable, arrestable, summary and offences with a conditional power of arrest was the context I used summary only offences in.

You'll know quite well that when Section 39 Assaults became recordable crimes and dealt with by the police there was no power of arrest.

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It's a common misconception. Shared by the Cyclist in the clip, it would seem.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's a common misconception. Shared by the Cyclist in the clip, it would seem.

I don't think our "legal advisor" is too sure either. :rotfl:

That's why its best to have proper legal advise from a qualified solicitor to challenge the law.

Cornucopia

That's all very well, but figures of authority apparently making stuff up gives rise to exactly this sort of unnecessary confrontation. I don't think that the Police should find it remotely challenging to be asked, and they should be able to confidently state the Act and the Section that they are presently relying on.

All of which is not helped by the relatively rapid increase in the overall amount of legislation out there.