Chapter 22 End-of-chapter questions

The police have a particular relationship with the government. Which of the following statements relating to that relationship are true? Select all that apply.

Each year, the Chief Constables of each police force in the UK must come before Parliament to explain significant actions they have taken during the last year; they can be questioned, and in some cases even dismissed, by Ministers.

Much of the way the police operate in practice is set out in statute, primarily PACE and its amendments. However, the police retain certain powers under the common law, such as the ability to arrest for breach of the peace.

By convention, ex-police officers cannot be eligible for election to Parliament. It is thought to be improper that an individual who at one point wielded the power to execute state authority should be able to partake in the legislative process.

Whilst there are national elements to policing structure in the UK, much of the work in practice occurs at a local level; PCCs act as something of a liaison between the two levels.

Owing to their particular nature, complaints against the actions of police are not dealt with through normal courts, but serious complaints can be made straight to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The Home Secretary sets the overarching policy and strategy objectives of the police forces of England and Wales, and can intervene in police forces if they are failing.

'Suspicionless' stop and search powers raise unique concerns. Which of the following statements relating to these powers are correct? Select all that apply.

Suspicionless stops and searches cannot occur under general stop and search powers. They must be authorised by a senior officer under a specific statutory provision such as Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Suspicionless stop and search powers are usually limited in both a temporal and geographical sense. Once approved, they apply only for a certain amount of time and over a certain area.

Suspicionless stop and search powers cannot be exercised by any individual officer more than one time in a given 24-hour period.

Any item or evidence found through the use of suspicionless stop and search powers cannot be used in court, except in exceptional circumstances.

Suspicionless stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act were successfully challenged in the case of Gillan v UK.

Suspicionless stop and search powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act were successfully challenged in the case of Roberts v Police Commissioner.

Match the cases below to the statement describing what the judges held in each case and why this is important for the exercise of police powers.

The power of senior police officials to authorise 'suspicionless' stop and search within a certain area under the Terrorism Act 2000 is not compatible with the ECHR. Proper protection of the right to a private life requires that safeguards and controls on abuse of discretion exist wherever such powers operate.

It is against public policy for the police to be subject to too wide a scope of liability in negligence. Whilst police can be sued in tort, the courts will generally be reluctant to impose liability for mistakes given the nature of police work.

An individual should have access to legal advice from the very moment they are arrested, or from the moment they are made subject to questioning. Any rule or practice to the contrary should not be applied if it is to be consistent with the ECHR. Human rights provide a powerful safeguard against the abuse of police powers.

An individual who confessed to murder after a significant period of bullying and abuse by officers could not have that confession admitted as evidence before a court. Criminal confessions will not be valid if they are obtained through oppressive actions by the police.

The ability of a senior police officer to authorise suspicionless stop and search under the Public Order and Criminal Justice Act 1994 was deemed to be compliant with the ECHR. This was largely due to the limited nature of that authorisation and the safeguards in the Act. This shows that police powers can remain effective and are not strangled by the need to comply with human rights laws.

The police can be sued under the tort of false imprisonment if detention (either through arrest or the exercise of other powers) if the power is exercised unlawfully, although not every breach of law will give rise to an actionable tort.

Human rights laws have guided the development of police powers. Which of the following statements in relation to the police and human rights are true? Select all that apply.

Under Article 5 ECHR, when an individual has been arrested, they must be told promptly of the fact that they have been arrested and the reasons for this.

Under Article 5 ECHR, an individual that has been detained following arrest must be brought promptly before an authority which can review the legality of their detention.

Under Article 5 ECHR, an individual's detention cannot be extended by anyone other than a judicial authority.

Under Article 6 ECHR, an individual's arrest must be evaluated by a judge before they can be detained following arrest.

Under Article 6 ECHR, when an individual has been arrested and is questioned, they should be able to rely on legal advice if they choose to do so.

Under Articles 3 and 6 ECHR, any confessions which arise out of inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be used in a trial.

Parliament passes the (imaginary) Protection of Citizens Act. Under that Act, a senior police officer can authorise all officers within a particular area to search any individual's handbag or rucksack, without the need for any sort of suspicion, for information relating to certain forms of large-scale violence and terrorism. Person X is a resident of the area and the superintendent has validly authorised the exercise of such powers. Officer Y stops Person X and asks them to open their bag. They are not told the reasons for this. Person X refuses and tries to run away. Officer Y tackles Person X to the ground to prevent their escape and arrests them; they are told that they are being officially arrested but nothing more. They are detained for 30 hours at a police station; during this time, Officer Z questions Person X. They are told that they may request a lawyer, which they decline to do. For four hours, Person X is harshly questioned by Officer Z. She is verbally abused and slapped. Out of frustration, Person X says that she is involved in a terrorist cell - something which is absolutely false.
The situation above raises many issues relating to the use of police powers and of arrest and detention. Which of the following statements below provides the most accurate account of the law in relation to the above? Select the single best answer.

Since the authorisation was validly executed by a senior police officer, the suspicionless stop and search of Person X's bag should, in theory, be lawful, although given its similarity to the case of Gillan v UK it may be susceptible to legal challenge on human rights grounds. Officer Y potentially acts unlawfully by not informing Person X of the reason why they are being arrested, although since the power is being exercised under a suspicionless stop and search power this requirement is not mandatory. Person X's detention for 30 hours exceeds the standard time limit for detention before charge. The fact that they are told that they may request a lawyer is positive, but the verbal and physical abuse she suffers is not. The confession that resulted may or may not be admissible in court. Finally, Officer Y may have committed the tort of battery by tackling Person X to the ground and Officer Z may have done the same by slapping Person X whilst in custody.

Since the authorisation was validly executed by a senior police officer, the suspicionless stop and search of Person X's bag should, in theory, be lawful, although given its similarity to the case of Gillan v UK it may be susceptible to legal challenge on human rights grounds. Officer Y also acts unlawfully by not informing Person X of the reason why they are being arrested. Person X's detention for 30 hours exceeds the standard time limit for detention before charge. The fact that Person X is told that they may request a lawyer is positive, but the verbal and physical abuse she suffers is not. It is very likely that the resulting confession will not be admissible in court. Finally, Officer Y may have committed the tort of battery by tackling Person X to the ground and Officer Z may have done the same by slapping Person X whilst in custody.

Since the authorisation was validly executed by a senior police officer, the suspicionless stop and search of Person X's bag is undoubtedly lawful. Human rights grounds offer no assistance given the result of the challenge in Roberts v DPP. Officer Y potentially acts unlawfully by not informing Person X of the reason why they are being arrested, although since the power is being exercised under a suspicionless stop and search power this requirement is not mandatory. Person X's detention for 30 hours is lawful as it falls within the time period for detention following arrest under suspicion of committing a serious crime. The fact that Person X is told that they may request a lawyer is positive, but the verbal and physical abuse she suffers is not. The confession that resulted may or may not be admissible in court. Finally, Officer Y may have committed the tort of battery by tackling Person X to the ground and Officer Z may have done the same by slapping Person X whilst in custody.

Since the authorisation was validly executed by a senior police officer, the suspicionless stop and search of Person X's bag should, in theory, be lawful, although given its similarity to the case of Gillan v UK it may be susceptible to legal challenge on human rights grounds. Officer Y also acts unlawfully by not informing Person X of the reason why they are being arrested. Person X's detention for 30 hours exceeds the standard time limit for detention before charge, although this may be justified given the nature of the offence she is suspected of committing. The fact that Person X is told that they may request a lawyer is positive, but in order to comply with the ECHR, a lawyer should be provided regardless of Person X's wishes. It is very likely that the resulting confession will not be admissible in court. Finally, Officer Y may have committed the tort of battery by tackling Person X to the ground and Officer Z may have done the same by slapping Person X whilst in custody, although the general rule against police liability makes any legal challenge fraught with difficulty.

Quiz Content