An Analysis on the Arrest and its Lawfulness - Essay Example

Eric has been charged with section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 only whereby the Prosecution has to consider the merits of whether to prosecute for this charge or not. Applying the two tier Full code test as set out in s.4 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors the evidential and the public interest factors need to be considered. Even if the evidential reliability is established the prosecution may not proceed on other grounds. Prima facie securing a conviction would not pose a problem with regards to the test in section 4(6) Code for Crown Prosecutors as the only defense Eric may be able to use is that of Voluntary Intoxication for section 47 of the OAPA 1861 which could be easily refuted by Fred’s avoidance of a prospective brawl twice. Since the incident took place at a public event and there are a number of eye witnesses out of whom there are two adults the statements can be corroborated to see if they match in case of any doubts regarding the children’s eye witness accounts of the occurring(section 4(7)(g) Code for Crown Prosecutors). Furthermore post emergency doctor’s reports can be used as supporting evidence to ascertain section 4(7)(k) Code for Crown Prosecutors. The evidence has been gathered in the normal course of investigation therefore it is safe to presume its admissibility will not be an issue also (section 4(7)(a) Code for Crown Prosecutors). Though section 4(11) of the Code may seem to be satisfied where sufficiency of evidence is concerned but it remains to be considered whether public interest will be served in prosecuting Mr. Eric assessing the balance scale between factors tending in favor (section 4(16) Code for Crown Prosecutors) and against(section 4(17) Code for Crown Prosecutors) a prosecution. As the offence in question not only had the threat of violence (section 4(16)(c) Code for Crown Prosecutors) present it was actually occasioned also in the presence and in close proximity to children (section 4(16)(g)) instigated due to his dislike of Fred’s local team (section 4(16)(h)). Considering the display of violence was in a public place and would have caused a negative impact on the minors’ present prosecuting Eric’s offence would send a message for young minds for consequential penalties of such kind of acts providing a deterrent for violent behavior and boost community confidence (section 4(16)(r) Code for Crown Prosecutors). Though an out of court disposal may be considered if section 4(16)(b) of the Code can be satisfied and that it can be ascertained that Eric’s offence was likely a one off incident induced by his intoxicated state (section 4(16)(e)) and that Fred is accepting or unaffected by the decision not to prosecute. As Fred has suffered serious jaw injury which is likely to require a minor or intrusive surgery causing him physical and mental distress (section 4(16)(g) Code for Crown Prosecutors) is of importance whether Eric’s monetary compensation if any satisfies Fred’s sense of due justice (section 4(16)(i) Code for Crown Prosecutors). As only in exceptional circumstances an out of court disposal by way of a simple caution is offered for indictable offences (section 7(5) Code for Crown Prosecutors) and a conditional caution may only be considered if after accounting for the victim’s and community’s interest it would serve no purpose to prosecute (section 7(2) Code for Crown Prosecutors). Based on the facts provided Eric’s state of intoxication at a children’s sporting event makes the presumption of an assessment in his favor extremely unlikely, thus balancing the arguments and counter-arguments the decision to prosecute is the plausible outcome (section 7(8) Code for Crown Prosecutors). 2. The issue in respect of this question requires an analysis on the arrest and it’s lawfulness in respect of PACE 1984. Since Martin was merely a store detective section 24A Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 , which is relevant to the facts at hand, will be discussed. Section 24A Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for arrest without a warrant by a person who is not a constable. The possible reason for such arrest which is relevant to the facts is the one whereby an indictable offence has been committed and the person being arrested is guilty of such offence or he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person would be guilty of such an offence. In respect of the situation at hand the only information that Martin has had is the fact that Claire is wanted for questioning as to her involvement of public disturbance. The problem in respect of the arrest would be the fact that under normal situations public disturbance would be considered to be a summary offence rather than an indictable offence, however, if the offence was of a grave nature, there can be the possibility of an indictable offence. However, even if the presumption is drawn that Martin had reasonable grounds to believe that Claire had committed an indictable offence, which would be difficult to prove based on the fact that he was merely informed that the police wanted her for questioning which leads to the presumption that the police themselves were no sure of her committing the offence, the other requirements also need to be fulfilled for a an arrest without warrant to take place. A summary arrest can occur under the said section if the conditions provided for in Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.24 A (4) are satisfied (S.24A(3)) which are to prevent the person from either causing physical injury to himself or another; suffering physical injury; causing loss of or damage to property; or making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him. The only reason that can be put forward is the last one whereby Martin can claim that he presumed that Claire would run away before responsibility could have been taken by a constable, however, such an argument would stand weak in the circumstances provided because of the fact that Claire was merely shopping and Martin could have called the police in that while so as to get her arrested before he decided to lock her up. In light of the situation, the balance is titled in favour of Claire and the possibility of the arrest being unlawful is higher as Martin did not follow the criteria as ascertained by Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.24A thereby making such an arrest unlawful. 3. The problem in this question requires a discussion of an arrest without a warrant by constable and whether such an arrest is lawful or not. In respect of the facts at hand Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 24(3) is important whereby a constable is empowered to a arrest without a warrant any person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a person to be involved in the commission of the offence. In respect of the current situation PC Smith arrested the youth on the suspicion of the commission of offence which he had been informed of by PC Todd. Furthermore, the reasonable suspicion arose because of matching of description and therefore the criteria under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 24(3) would be said to be satisfied. However, a further condition for such an arrest has been mentioned by way of section 24(4) whereby any of the reason listed in Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 24(5) must be satisfied before such an arrest would be held to be lawful. One of the reason is to prevent the person in question--causing physical injury to himself or any other person; suffering physical injury; causing loss of or damage to property; or to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question; to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question. In respect of the question at hand PC Smith can make a number of arguments whereby he can say that since the youth had been involved in damage to property further damage was prevented by the arrest. The next argument that can be raised is the allowing of the effective as well as prompt investigation of the broken shop window and/or finally prevention of prosecution for offence being hindered by way of the disappearance of the youth. In lieu of the facts above the criteria laid down by Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 24 would be satisfied and the arrest by PC Smith would be held lawful as the factual situation clearly points out the satisfaction of the set criteria laid in the said sections Bibliography Reader 1, Reading 43, Crown Prosecution Service (2010) The Code for Crown Prosecutors, February 2010 The Open University, pp. 131—139. Reader 1, Reading 44, ‘Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984’, The Open University, pp. 131—139. Howell, Caroll. et al. (2006) ‘Unit 11 Building a case’, W100 ‘Enforcing Rules’ Block 3 Part F, The role of police officers- arrest and charge, The Open University, pp. 91--98. Read More