The Impacts of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Amendments - Assignment Example

The Impacts of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Amendments Introduction The role of the police in administrative governance of any country remains a vital element in the defense of certain fundamental human rights. Their presence not only guarantees constitutional provisions of rights to liberty and security, but they also safeguard the ultimate human right that all other rights are pegged on- the right to life. In essence, the police support the public’s ability to coexist and live in environments devoid of fear due to unprecedented violent crimes thereby creating atmospheres within which all other constitutional rights and freedoms can be enjoyed. With operational involvements covering emergency response and permanent beats, the police routinely and widely interact with the public in a range of encounters; some of which are public initiations such as those involving crime reporting or self initiated information search, whereas others are linked to police activities in their quest to maintain law and order. In the process of these encounters, conversations ensue; witnesses are sought after and questioned; the police occasionally intervene forcefully with more intrusive impromptu stops prompted by suspicions; prosecutions are done, among other duties that must/should follow some order (Bland, et al., 2000). The coming into force of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 and its amendments has not only brought a lasting impact on how the police conduct their duties, but has also place the UK as a role model to many other countries around the globe in terms of tactical shifts in policing in the light of crime sophistication in the modern world. Background to the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 PACE enactment followed the formation of Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (RCCP) in February 1978 to examine: 1. “Police powers and duties regarding investigation processes relating to criminal offences committed and the rights of suspected individuals/accused persons 2. Responsibility of the police in relation to the prosecution of suspected criminals; and 3. Matters related to procedural criminal prosecution and evidence collection as well as powers to make recommendations in these matters” (RCCP, 1981). Having due regard to the public interests in bringing offenders to justice with their rights and liberties upheld throughout the criminal justice process, and utilizing public resources in the same efficiently and economically, the commission, under the able chairmanship of Professor Sir Cyril Philips, released its report in January 1981 with far reaching reform recommendations in the police service in England and Wales. Accordingly, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was enacted. The setting up of the Commission was informed by Sir Henry Fisher‟s police investigation report into the “Confait death case”. Mr. Maxwell Confait, a transvestite homosexual prostitute, according to the police authorities, was found dead by firemen called upon to extinguish a fire at 27 Doggett Road, London on the 22nd April 1972. Three suspects - Ronald Leighton, 15, Colin Lattimore, 18 but with a mental age of 8, and Ahmet Salih, 14 - were arrested in connection with Confait’s death. After interrogative police questioning, Lattimore, aided by Leighton support, admitted to being the author of the Doggett's fire and the subsequent death of Confait. Salih, present at Leighton’s house at the time of the incidence was also questioned on his role at the scene. Peculiar to the interviewing process of the three juvenile suspected offenders was the conspicuous absence of adult to oversee the police questioning process. The three confessed as being the architects of the crimes at the questioning stage, but pleaded not guilty at the Old Bailey trial, citing police assaults leading to earlier confessions (RCCP, 1981). In November 1972, a successful trial found the three accused guilty of arson, murder and manslaughter. In particular, Leighton was sentenced for life imprisonment for murder, Lattimore was found guilty of manslaughter, but on grounds of lesser responsibility, and so ordered detained under the provisions of the Mental Health Act at Rampton Hospital. Salih was sentence on grounds of arson and so sent to Royal Philanthropic School for four years under the provisions of youth custody. In July 1973, almost one year after the verdict above, the defense appeal against the ruling was rejected. Against a backdrop of wide media publicity of alleged miscarriage of justice, the case was sent back to the Court of Appeal on the 18th June 1975. In the light of adduced evidence, the Court quashed the convictions of the three accused persons as being unsafe. According to Sir Fisher’s report, the trial of the three had numerous violations of certain fundamental human rights. Questioning of the suspects in the absence of appropriate adults by the police was in itself a breach of the Judges‟ Rules of proper investigation. Additionally, there were prosecution errors. However, the report fell short of exculpating the three; that is, on a balance of probabilities, the three boys were fully answerable to arson claims that eventually led to Confait’s death. In light of the inherent genuine claims that the public had against the police, Fisher’s report recommended that future their interviews be recorded to allow for scrutiny. Hitherto to the doldrums that characterized Confait’s case, criticisms, particularly in the media as well as in courts concerning the low transparency or total opacity of general police conduct were daily occurrences and so Confait’s case was not exceptional. In fact, lack of a structured link between the police and the public at large was considered a causal consequence to the Brixton disorder that involved botched investigations making their way into the court trials (Scarman, 1981). Indeed, legal rules guiding police actions, especially, those that pertains the treatment of suspects were long overdue. A standard measure to gauge the accountability of the police in a more meaningful manner was needed fast to safeguard adherence to the rule of law (RCCP, 1981, par. 1.11 to 1.35.). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its Evolution The enactment of PACE brought about significant reforms that effectively laid down the legal framework within which the police could exercise their powers. According to the recommendations of the Fisher report, PACE demarcated the lines of authority that the police had to adhere to while conducting their duties (PACE, Codes of practice A-H). The Code of Practice set forth by the Act clearly outlined powers granted to the police regarding search, both for an individual and private premises. The Act explained in detail the circumstances under which the police could gain entry to those premises, the expectation towards the handling of exhibits seized from the premises as well as the treatment of suspected criminals put in custody (Maguire, 1998). Further, the Act included in it the procedures and rights of suspected offenders during questioning by the police. Failure to observe provisions of the Act carried with it a penalty to the extent of a criminal offence. Police actions that contravened the Codes of Practice while conducting searches, arrests, procedural detention or interviews to suspected offenders could be rendered inadmissible in court (Roberts and Zuckerman, 2004). The adoption and implementation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE] in UK did herald an era of innovative, regulatory attempts regarding the conduct of police activities in relation to crime investigations. Over time, continual revision and crucial amendments has resulted in a markedly different creature to that which was originally enacted. However, the basic cornerstones of PACE has survived irrespective of changes done to the law so far. Indeed, the original enactment set forth a legal advice framework, which effectively established fundamental rights of those arrested and subsequently detained by the police for having violated the law at some point. Driven by the government objectives and targets, the police service increasingly became professionalized (Quinton, Bland and Miller, 2000). Given the publics fears regarding their safety, crime control has become an issue of public policy with emphasis put on identifying priority areas to enable quick responses to the highly complicated crime cases in the recent years. As such, the balance underpinning PACE has dramatically shifted over time in respect to the increasing crime rates in the UK (Home Office, 2001). The shift is obvious in the review to which PACE has been subjected to since its enactment in 1984 (Zander, 2005). The 2002 proposal and the subsequent review of 2002 brought in efficient, modernized measures that paved the way for the police to combat 21st century crimes. According to the policy drafters, police investigative tools were growing obsolete in the face of complicated crimes in the modern time. Thus, the police needed to up their game. Five years later, a further reform initiative dubbed “Modernizing Police Powers” was launched by the Home Office. The 2007 enactment did re-focus investigative and evidence gathering processes towards enabling the delivery of the 21st century policing powers to meets the complicated demands of 21st century crimes (Albanese, 2007). A good example of the reviews made so far regards the Crown Prosecution Service; originally established with no investigation powers, this agency has been granted the powers to investigative process and consequently make charge decisions. Unlike the former, the initiative was a rebalancing reform Act to the criminal justice system in favor of the law-abiding citizenry, who are the majority. In particular the new reforms were geared towards cutting down crimes rates through recidivism reduction policies. In essence, the law reforms targeted the safety of victims and witnesses and avoided the trap of privileging offenders over victims and witnesses. Nevertheless, human rights activists have voiced their concerns over using the amended Clauses to undermine civil liberties in the pretext of fighting the war against terror. In this regard, Professor Michael Zander expressed his reservation and skepticism arguing that certain proposed amendments are “fashionable mantra aimed rebalancing the Act in favor of prosecution” (Zander, 2005). Police Powers in relation to Stop and Search, arrests, detention and interviewing under PACE PACE clearly defined the police powers to stop and search suspected persons or vehicles should they have reasonable doubts of such being possession of stolen and/or prohibited articles. Such actions are grounded on detection and preventive measures. Prior to the enactment of PACE 1984, there was a lacuna in the police service in relation to stop and searches with stereotyping taking precedence. Police powers in this area were basically unstructured, found mainly in different pieces of legislations that were neither clear nor workable (Irving, and McKenzie, 1989). In effect, these powers could not be monitored and so, lacked safeguards to persons likely to be subjected to stop and search. The introduction of PACE did set the standards laying “reasonable grounds for suspicion” towards effecting stops and searches. Accordingly, a suspect had to be informed of the reason/s for a search and proper written records must also accompany the process (Taylor, 2002). “Reasonable grounds for suspicion” had to be concretely supported before a stop and search decision is reached and consent of the affected had to be sought. With PACE in place, arbitrary stops and searches prevailing hitherto inherent prior to the legislation had to stop. The police had to devise tactical approaches aimed at detecting crimes to ensure public safety. However, the issue of consent has been subject of intense debates thereby exposing the impracticability under unforeseen circumstances. According to the findings of Quinton et al, (2000), the police needed a lot of training to abide the provisions of PACE. Even after the historic enactment meant to change the conduct of the police in certain spheres, their powers still went beyond stop and search provisions enshrined in the Act requiring “consent” or “reasonable suspicion.” Based on other factors such as age, gender, race, class and area coupled with the police experiences acquired through their encounters with different categories of criminals, the concept of “consent” or “reasonable suspicion” are often applied disparately within the police across England (Dixon et al, 1989; Miller, 2000). Evidently, working rules had been so deeply incrusted in the police culture to the extent that changing them needed substantial efforts to alter sticky mindsets to conform to the new legal framework (Young, 1994). Despite the difficulties and apprehension of the police regarding their old developed working culture, PACE has turned out to be a valuable tool in the processes of police investigations as well as a safeguarding tool towards the fundamental rights of suspected criminals. According to the statistical surveys, provisions of PACE constraining powers of the police of stop and search have been widely in use, accompanied by a corresponding recording. In most cases of stop and search, the criterion of “reasonable suspicion” has been applied leading to a significant reduction in searches after stops (Bottomley et al, 1991). Additionally, post PACE has enabled proper foundations of suspicions, which in effect has increased the likelihood of a stop resulting to a search and arrest. Clearly, objectives of PACE and the subsequent amendments, as far as stops and searches are concerned, have been met. However, race still constitutes a fundamental factor in determining such actions from the police (HMIC, 2003). Constitutional initiatives to address these concerns are well underway. Powers of the police concerning searching private premises was not clear under the law. According to a study done Sheffield University with respect to police powers of entry, search and seizure of personal belongings in connection with criminal activities, confusion existed as whether those powers were granted under the pretext of common law because thee were no procedural rules to be followed. To clear doubts, Lidstone (1981) argues that 75 percent of police searches and seizures from private premises prior to the enactment of PACE were neither carried with the consent of suspects nor were they done search warrants. Interestingly, until 1982 when the case of McLorie v Oxford [1982] Q.B 1290 brought assumptions to a halt, the general citizenry were also ignorant of being subjected to search and seizure powers that the police seemed to apply indiscriminately without warning. The introduction of PACE clarified earlier confusing issues on a statutory footing so that searches and seizures were henceforth effected on the basis of informed consent, with the suspects rights to refuse entry being an admissible possibility. Nevertheless, investigative powers (PACE Sec. 18) grants the police powers to enter and search private premises, arrest and seize evidential article(s) reasonably believed to be connected with offence (s) under investigations. Indeed, post PACE period has witnessed clearer powers of the police relating to search of arrested persons’ premises with inbuilt safeguards to prevent abuse. Accordingly, a warrant has to be sought from a higher ranking officer before conducting a search operation of the private premises of persons arrested or suspected (PACE, Code of Practice B). Under those circumstances, the police have to serve the occupiers” with the necessary information justifying the search, which as noted earlier, must be accompanied by proper written records to that effect (Willis, 1988). Even though doubts exist as to whether PACE provisions on the same provide enough checks to ensure scrutiny should there need be, the safeguards have proved important for purposes of accountability, control and supervision during investigations. Finally, even detained persons in police custody have the rights to search under the provisions of PACE. Under the old system of police working culture, detained persons had no rights to search, which were hitherto governed by routine practices done at will (Bland et al, 2000). References Albanese, J. S., 2007. Organized Crime in Our Times, 5th ed. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis. Bland, N. et al., 2000. Managing the Use and Impact of Searches: A review of force Interventions. London: Home Office (Policing and Reducing Crime Unit). Bottomley, A.K. et al., 1991. The Impact of PACE: Policing in a Northern Force. Hull: Centre for Criminology and Justice. Brown, D., 1991. Investigating Burglary: the effects of PACE. London: HMSO. Dixon, D. et al., 1989. Reality and rules in the construction and regulation of police suspicion. 17 International Journal of the Sociology of Law 185-206. HMIC, 2003. Diversity Matters. London: HMIC. Home Office, 2001. Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, cm 5326, London: HMSO. Irving, B.L. and McKenzie,I., 1989. Police Interrogation: the effects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. London: Police Foundation. Lidstone, K., 1981. Magisterial Review of the Pre-trial Process. Sheffield: Centre for Criminology ND Socio-Legal Studies. Maguire, M., 1998. “Effects of the PACE provisions on detention and questioning: some preliminary findings.” British Journal of Criminology 28 (1), pp. 19-43. McLorie v Oxford [1982] Q.B 1290. (1982) 3 WLR 423. Miller, J., 2000. Profiling Populations available for Stops and Searches. London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. Quinton, P., Bland, N. and Miller, J., 2000. Police Stops, Decision-making and Practice. London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. Roberts P. and Zuckerman A., 2004. Criminal Evidence. Oxford: OUP. Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (RCCP), 1981. Report (Cmnd 8092). London: HMSO. Scarman, 1981. Report on the Brixton disorders 10-12 April 1981 (Cmnd. 8427). Taylor, N., 2002. State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy. Surveillance and Society 1(1), pp. 66-85. Young, J., 1994. Policing the Streets: Stops and Search in North London. London: Centre for Criminology, Middlesex University. Zander, M., 2005. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 5th ed. London: Sweet and Maxwell. Willis, C.F. et al., 1988. The Tape-recordings of Police Interviews with Suspects: a Second Interim Report. London: HMSO. Read More