Police Regulations: Deportation and Torture Issue - Assignment Example

Police Regulations: Deportation and Torture Issue Introduction: All over the world, police forces are often accused for torturing or ill-treating members of the community and this entails dose to control over by government. At the same time the civil proceedings instituted suggest only a limited justification to the widespread problem of human rights mistreatment of the police. There are several norms to be followed with regard to individual rights in police station. Also, fundamentally it seeks to achieve a harmonious interaction between due exercise of powers of police and control to safeguard rights and interest of the society. Human right means the basic rights that the entire human beings have. The basic rights consist of right to live, freedom of expression, and equal treatment in the eyes of the law, right for education, right for food etc. These rights are inbuilt to every human being, irrespective of place of house, gender, country or cultural derivation, colour, belief, language, or any other criteria. The United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a well-regarded establishment which has a committee for the safeguard of human rights. The committee exists to guarantee equal opportunity and dignity to all human beings. The committee works to ensure that every person receives political, economical, spiritual and other rights. The prevention on torture, brutality or humiliation is the basic concept of and such actions cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The Human Rights Act of 1998: The main objectives of this Act are to guarantee a set of essential rights, which are planned in the Act, and completely appreciated and implemented in the United Kingdom. The Act basically amends the method by which the United Kingdom scheme of justice mechanism functions and to creates community authorities responsible for their judgments. “Torture is the most serious kind of ill-treatment. It consists of deliberate inhuman treatment, causing very serious and cruel suffering. The suffering can be either mental or physical or both. In several non UK cases, for example, the European Court of Human Rights has held that where suspects in a police station have been beaten in order to extract confessions and information about their political activities, this was torture.” 1 The European Conference on Human Rights reproduces these essential values. The rights incorporated in the Convention vary from fundamental assurance for example the right to being and the right not to be questioned and tortured to and guarantee that citizens remain well-treated in investigations and to safeguards the confidentiality and free appearance, and to remove unfairness. In United Kingdom, this particular right has been employed to guard human rights of: Criminals in Northern Ireland regions who are subjected to various difficult situations like lack of food and other essentials. Persons facing deportation to states where they encounter the danger of torture. Persons looking for refuge in the United Kingdom who do not have specified support and are banned from doing work. Children abandoned by their parents and lacking communal services. Children in confinement who are subjected to physical attack by prison authorities. Children beaten by guardian. Immobilized citizens who have been treated unfairly in rehabilitation centres and any of the other services. The United Nations global Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has been formed for guaranteeing that human rights are not desecrated or violated. There are alomost161 state parties in ICCPR. This is merely similar to International Covenant on Financial, Communal and Educational Rights (ICESCR) which works for guaranteeing monetary, communal and educational right of every individual on earth. Article 1 of the ICCPR elucidates the right of self- strength of mind which is significant amongst human rights. Articles 2 to 5 elucidate the right to being and article 7 is for interdiction of the torturing of persons. Article 3: freedom from torture and cruel or humiliating action or penalty: Article 3 of the Human rights act of 1998, would be relevant in the case of cruel or humiliating action such as, police examination methods that are cruel or intended to be cruel or humiliating. People’s constitutional rights to freedom from cruel and humiliating action might also be violated where a person has been apprehended and confined in an insufficient or unhygienic prison circumstances. “The Human Rights Act 1998 is playing an ever-increasing role in determining the standards of treatment of those detained by the state. Article 3 of the Act – freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment – is of particular importance for those detained in prisons, hospitals and other institutions. As Article 3 case law has evolved, so its interpretation has broadened to include a thorough scrutiny of prison conditions, prison healthcare and the treatment of prisoners in general.”2 Bodily sentence of kids may also violate Article 3. Extreme measures of unfairness may also amount to cruel and humiliating action, in violation of Article 3. There will be a violation of Article 3 rights where somebody is extradited or handed over to a state where they will encounter torture or questioning using cruel or humiliating action. The article 26 is for discrimination prevention. Article 27 awards a right for bonding or engaging in cultural enlargement for racial, linguistic or spiritual minorities. Human Rights Committee is delegated by way of implementing the rights as explained in ICCPR. The universal declaration of human rights explain that only if conditions are set for every human right, the idea of free human beings enjoying their civil or political rights, communal, financial and educational rights can be made a reality. The introduction of the Human right Act of 1998 in the United Kingdom, 1999 Stephen Lawrence investigation and some of the other cases for example, R (Amin) v Secretary of the State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 has transferred the United Kingdom lawful structure in the directions of various individual and human rights of sufferers. Petitions avenues from domestic appraisal, proceedings and inquiry findings to the European courtyard of constitutional rights has positioned a number of enforceable lawful forces on the United Kingdom Management to develop examination of police, jail, migration and military mistreatments, develop police practices and enlarge the function of the sufferer and families in examination. Civil proceedings are presently being employed to uncover the United Kingdom Management position in the mistreatment, cross-examination and imprisonment without examination of Tarek Dergoul and Moazzam Begg and at Guantanamo cove. In the Worldwide Agreement on Civil and Political Privileges, each person has the right to liberty of expression, i.e. they have the right of liberty to search for, communicate or take delivery of ideas and information either vocally or in writing or in any media. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also envisages that every person have the right to freedom of association by way of others. “Strasbourg Case-Law- A court or tribunal deciding a question in respect of a Convention right must take account of “relevant judgments, decisions, declarations and opinions made or given by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe” (Section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act). This means that Strasbourg jurisprudence will be influential, although not binding, on national courts.” 3 Strasbourg magistrates’ decision on the legality of any particular violation will have a conflict on the means domestic magistrates will approach the dilemma. Decisions made by the Strasbourg offer non-binding supervision on the examination of requirement and proportionality which means that any specified restrictions should accomplish their objectives with no extreme impact on the human right of the citizens. “Although the threshold for showing an Article 3 violation is high, the following areas may lead to potential breaches: Conditions in police cells, prisons, mental hospitals and other forms of detention centre. Corporal punishment and child abuse. Deportation or extradition to countries where there is a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. The living conditions of asylum seekers while they wait for their applications to be determined.”4 Conclusion: Human rights mean the basic rights that the entire human beings deserve. These rights are also inbuilt to every human being. Article 3 of the Act Human right Act of 1998 deals with liberty from torture and cruel treatment and degrading behavior it is of particular significance for those serving terms in jails, hospitals and other organizations. And person who violates this section commits a grave offence. Part 2: In relation to the police issue: Introduction: One of the major characteristics of the UK legal system is that it does not have a codified written constitution. Thus, decisions on cases could be based on legal precedents, interpretations of jury and influences of common law or equity and good conscience. In the domain of police issues, the main issues is whether the law enforcement departments work within the ambit of law and ensure that human rights and greater interests of alleged suspects are also considered, until and unless proved otherwise. For example, it would be unethical and counterproductive to extract confessions from suspects through coercion or unfair means and this is not tenable in a competent Court of Law. Besides, police should not exceed their authority and powers while dealing with alleged criminals and need to work within the framework of jurisprudence. Otherwise not only would these evidence be unacceptable but also criminal charges could be leveled against them for violation of Human Rights. The very purpose of law, preservation of human rights and its perpetration could be grossly violated. Police issues: Police powers outlined under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) circumscribes jurisdictional framework within which law enforcement officers, including police departments, need to combat crime and negate criminal conduct. Fundamentally, it seeks to achieve a harmonious interaction between due exercise of police powers and controls on the one hand, and the need to safeguard rights and interests of the public on the other. PACE laid down effective guidelines by which police could gain entry into premises, search and seize where needed, gather evidences, make arrests/detentions and produce alleged wrongdoers before the due process of law. It is interesting to note that if the specific terms of PACE are not abided with, criminal charges could be leveled against its violators, but in the event, evidences are collected in dire violation of Code of Practice, it is quite probable that such kinds of evidences would not be admissible in courts. The PACE Act is subdivided into several Codes as below: 1. Code A: Provides powers to policemen to search the person and vehicles of suspected wrongdoers, without making arrests. However, the concerned police officer needs to make a record of the stoppage or encounter. 2. Code B: Deals with discretionary powers of police personnel to enter and search places, seize and retain suspicious property found in places, or on persons 3. Code C: This section delineates the requirements in which non terrorist detainees brought under police custody are detained, questioned and treated. The norms which need to be strictly followed for this category of alleged offenders is delineated in this code 4. Code D: This section deals with the main methods by which police are able to identify suspects, including identification parades, video identification etc. 5. Code E: This section deals with audio recording of interviews with suspects in the Police station. It rules that it would give every opportunity to suspects to offer their versions and the rights and privileges available to them. 6. Code F: This section deals with video recording with sound of interviews with suspects in police custody. Although there is no legal necessity for police officers to seek video recordings with suspects, this is often done in order to have solid evidence about the case against suspects and reactions to video recording. Besides, if, either at the outset, or during video recording, the suspect does not wish to continue the session, objections need to be recorded and necessary action as per law needs to be taken up to protect their interests 7. Code G: Deals with Section 24 of PACE 1984 read with Section 110 of Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005.It deals mainly with prisoner’s rights on being arrested. “A lawful arrest requires two elements: A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence; AND Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary.” 5 Perhaps one of the major areas that these set of codes seek to enforce is to avoid arbitrariness and police excesses while carrying out police duties and criminal justice delivery systems. Both deficits and excesses in services would not serve the best interests of judiciary, policing system, or victims and public at large. Thus, it is important that these CJS be simplified and rendered more user friendly, while at the same time, bringing perpetrators of crime before the due process of law and natural justice. Section 2 of PACE 1984 encumbers upon the uniformed duty police officers to inform the persons regarding proposed searches in terms of the name of the policeman, the name of his police station, objective and ground for search and also make a written record of the process of search. However, during the proceedings in the case of Mustapha Osman v Southwark Crown Court (1999) the searches were carried out without duly informing the applicant. Held, according to the learned courts the due process of law under Section 2 of PACE had not be carried out and the prosecution claim for wrongful assault of police officer was quashed. Again, in the case of in O'Loughlin v Chief Constable of Essex (1998) the police forced their way without explaining it was in order to arrest Mr O'Loughlin's wife. The Court ruled that forcible and unlawful entry was deemed in this case and thus the victim, Mr O'Loughlin was able to sue police for damages. However, in the case of R v. Longman (1988), the court held that, although the police had entered the premises in search of drugs and other contraband items by use of devious methods, once they entered it, they identified themselves as police officers and also had search warrants. Thus, this entry was lawful, and not prejudicial to interests of the defendants. Thus, to a very large extent, the circumstances and scenario surrounding the searches and arrests and conduct of both the police and the defendants needs to be taken into account. As laid down in the landmark case of S. And Marper v. United Kingdom (2004), retention of finger prints and DNA samples of suspects (even if proved innocent later) could be done and this is not in contravention of defendants’ rights under Convention law. Section 61, 63 and 64 of PACE 1984 enunciate the methods and modus operandi that need to be followed, including rights for previous information to suspects about sample taking and also record keeping and archiving of such records. Next, it is necessary to consider the relevant Code of Practice (COP) in Police Regulations. Stop and Search: Under this procedure, the police constable could search any person, vehicle or any object in any vehicle (not dwelling house) wherein he has reasons to believe that illegal, or contraband substances, or deeds are being carried on. There must be strong legal basis on which such law enforcement officers or constables could stop and search vehicles or premises. Normally, premises do not constitute searches, unless the constable has strong reasons to believe that the person, who is going to be searched, does not belong to such dwelling house. There is also need for maintaining records and notes for such stop and searches and these also need to be shared with the defendants. Again, Justice of Peace (JP) may provide search and seize warrants to policemen, whenever there are reasons to believe that such searches are needed in particular situations to control crimes and criminal activities. Arrests: A law enforcement officer or constable could arrest a person on the grounds that a crime has been committed, or would be committed in future, without the need for arrest warrants. Where the law enforcement officer is of the view that a crime has to be prevented, or wrongdoers need to be arrested, this could be done without arrest warrants. But the law officer or constable needs to have proper justification and basis for doing such acts which may sometimes be considered ultra-vires, or outside the constitutional powers of the law enforcers, if challenged later on. “According to the provisions of Section 37 of PACE, where a person has been held without arrest warrant or in a non bail able offence, the custody officer at each PS where he has been arrested shall determine whether the charges framed against him are based on evidence or not. Further he has to produce the evidence on which the arrest and detention has been made.” 6 Individual rights at Police Station: There are several norms to be followed with regard to individual rights in PS. The maximum limit during which a prisoner could be held without being summoned for court proceedings is 24 hours, which could be extended to a further period of 12 hours, making it a total of 36 hours. With the permission of Magistrate’s Court this detention without legal process could be extended to 96 hours. The arresting officer needs to make the first review of the prisoner within 6 hours of the arrest, and besides, reviews should also be carried out every 9 hours. The suspects need to be informed about the charges against them, option to remain silent, seek free legal counsel and also to be informed that what they say regarding the charges framed against them need to be recorded and archived, including their replies which may be used against them in competent court of law. Conclusion: The PACE Act has been one of the most sensitive and elaborate pieces of legislation in jurisprudence in the United Kingdom. It needs to be studied and interpreted with care in order that not only the public interests are well served but also the rights of defendants and suspects in criminal cases are also well protected. As is well clichéd, an alleged suspect is believed innocent until proved guilty and this shall be the underlying premise when identifying, arresting, detaining and trying suspects in criminal cases. Bibliography Comprehensive Information on no win no fee claims and the compensation process, ‘Swarb.Co.Uk’ [2010] accessed 11 November 2010 Human Rights, ‘UK Human Rights Blog’ accessed 11 November 2010 M Curtice and J Sandfore, ‘Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Treatment of Prisoners [2010] Advance3s in Psychiatric Treatment accessed 11 November 2010 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, ‘Code G’ [2005] accessed 11 November 2010 Rt Hon, ‘A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998’ [2006] 3 DCA accessed 11 November 2010 Read More