Police Vs Cyclist

Moto2

RS2000. wrote: »

You've done the same as moto there.

I guess you weren't too clear with what you were trying to convey then?

RS2000.

Moto2 wrote: »

I guess you weren't too clear with what you were trying to convey then?

RS2000. wrote: »

In the context of that video yes, as it would appear to be either part of his core role or something he set out to do that day.

But being expected to know every act and section is unrealistic. If you had to know the law to that extent how long would it take to train them? Law students don't know everything after four years at uni.

Isn't that clear enough?

Wig

Ok,

So what about some of the cyclists video captions?

1. Is he (cyclist) obliged to take the paperwork?
A. I would think not

2A. Is he (cyclist) required to identify himself?
A. I would think not.

2B. Can he be arrested for failing to provide identification or failing to identify himself?
A. I would think not, but he can be arrested in order to determine his identity, as he suspected of commiting an offence. These might sound like the same thing but I think there is a subtle difference.

2C. After being arrested as such, when at the station is there any obligation on him to identify himself? If he refuses to identify himself how long can he be detained by the police?
A. I don't know.

3A. I don't think a policeman has to quote verbatim what any section says.
But I do think that a policeman has to know what section they are arresting someone under.

3B. Does a constable have to say it as part of their arrest? i.e. "I am arresting you under S24 PACE to determine your identity, because I saw you go through a red traffic signal"
or
do they merely have to state "You are under arrest, you have the right to remain silent etc..."

3C. And if they do not say under what law you are being arrested, do they have to tell you if you then ask them to do so? And do they have to say so there and then or can they say "I will tell you when we get to the station."?

RS2000.

It is enough to tell them the offence and statutory reason.

In this case it would be for going through a red light and the fact he cannot verify his name and/or address.

Wig

I have added a few bits above, could you let me know your thinking on each one...? Would be appreciated.

Cornucopia

The basic thing is that there's rarely true compulsion in UK law, in a plain English sense.

However, there are plenty of cases where unless you do X, you will potentially be arrested and/or prosecuted.

1. If the cyclist doesn't take the paperwork, he cannot pay the fixed penalty, and will therefore likely be taken to Court.

2A. He is required to identify himself, and if he refuses or gives false info, can be arrested.

2B. Yes.

2C. IIUC, the Law says that a person can be detained for as long as it takes to satisfactorily identify him.

Not sure about any of the 3s.


Isn't it obvious why? Because otherwise, you could be stopped for a wide range of offences, and simply decline to give your name and therefore walk away.

arcon5

I didnt think red lights were an obligation for cyclists? Of course its usually outright reckless to ignore them, but didnt think it actually was an offense, let alone one you can be ticketed for.........

RS2000.

Wig wrote: »

Ok,

So what about some of the cyclists video captions?

1. Is he (cyclist) obliged to take the paperwork?no
A. I would think not

2A. Is he (cyclist) required to identify himself?yes for the purpose of serving summons/postal charge
A. I would think not.

2B. Can he be arrested for failing to provide identification or failing to identify himself?yes to establish his identity
A. I would think not, but he can be arrested in order to determine his identity, as he suspected of commiting an offence.

2C. After being arrested as such, when at the station is there any obligation on him to identify himself? If he refuses to identify himself how long can he be detained by the police?if he refuses he'd be held and put before a court
A. I don't know.

3A. I don't think a policeman has to quote verbatim what any section says.correct
But I do think that a policeman has to know what section they are arresting someone under.

3B. Does a constable have to say it as part of their arrest? i.e. "I am arresting you under S24 PACE to determine your identity, because I saw you go through a red traffic signal"
or
do they merely have to state "You are under arrest, you have the right to remain silent etc..."already answered

3C. And if they do not say under what law you are being arrested, do they have to tell you if you then ask them to do so? And do they have to say so there and then or can they say "I will tell you when we get to the station."? they have to be told unless it's impractical at the time

Changes answered.

Wig

Cornucopia wrote: »

The basic thing is that there's rarely true compulsion in UK law, in a plain English sense.

However, there are plenty of cases where unless you do X, you will potentially be arrested and/or prosecuted.

1. If the cyclist doesn't take the paperwork, he cannot pay the fixed penalty, and will therefore likely be taken to Court.
He could have the paperwork posted to him, question is does he have the right to refuse the paperwork?

2A. He is required to identify himself, and if he refuses or gives false info, can be arrested.
So is the arrest for failing to identify yourself when requested to do so by a constable? What law is that?
Or is the arrest an arrest in order to determine your identity under S24(5) PACE. There is subtle difference, I believe.

2B. Yes.

2C. IIUC, the Law says that a person can be detained for as long as it takes to satisfactorily identify him.


Not sure about any of the 3s.

Thanks for your reply

Cornucopia

1. I'm not sure I'd use the term "right". The law is specified as a fixed penalty regime, so refusing the paperwork whilst physically possible is impeding the law the way it was designed. It's also pointless.

2. It's PACE S.24. There is compulsion to provide details, AND the potential for arrest for the purposes of confirming the identity.