Excessive powers of Arrest ?

[Justsomebloke]

Found this on a 4x4 forum & thought I would share.
It's Ok saying if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear but when people are being arrested & slung in cells for such minor crimes then something is wrong.
I've been checking up on recent changes to legislation concerning my off roading & it pretty much seems now if old bill want to arrest you & sling you in the cells for the night they don't even need an excuse.

Quote from LR4x4.

Subject: Excessive Powers of Arrest by Police - Petition to the Prime Minister

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

PLEASE READ ON, THIS IS NOT A ‘SPAM’ MESSAGE

Most people are unaware that in 2005 a fundamental change in police powers was quietly passed into law; a change that directly affects the life and liberty of you and every person in this country.

Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was 'tacked onto' an otherwise acceptable piece of legislation and allows ANY police officer in England and Wales to arrest, (i.e. physically detain, handcuff and take to a police station for a DNA sample), ANY person, for ANY offence, no matter how trivial and whether or not a power of arrest previously existed for that offence. People can now be, (and have been), arrested and detained under Section 110 for not wearing a seatbelt; dropping litter; shouting in the presence of a police officer, climbing a tree, and building a snowman. Whereas police officers used to have to justify every arrest and be aware of whether or not a particular piece of legislation gave them power, they no longer have to do so. The power to deprive someone of their liberty should only be exercised in the most extreme circumstances, yet young and inexperienced police officers, (and soon, PCSO’s), are being trained that arrest and detention of a suspect is the first option in most encounters with the public. This sweeping power is being roundly abused on a daily basis in all of the 43 police forces in this country and puts you, your wife, husband or partner, your children and your friends at risk of arbitrary action by the police.

I spent 35 years of my adult life in the Police Service and am appalled by what it has become, largely as a result of powers such as those granted under Section 110.

Petitioning the Prime Minister will probably do little to stop the drift of this country to what has been described as a 'Stasi State' but I would nonetheless ask that you consider placing your signature on the petition - if only to see how the government responds to genuine concern from thoughtful citizens.

If you are sympathetic to this project, please forward this message and link to other friends, colleagues or bodies concerned about civil liberties.

The link to the petition is below:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PowersofArrest/


Thank you,


David Gilbertson QPM
(formerly Assistant Inspector of Constabulary
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary,
Home Office(retired 2001))

Written by a Dude that was a copper for 35 years.
Thoughts ?

[loki]

I know of quite a few people who have been detained under this act at Football matches. Not your hard nosed Hooligan type or your mild mannered rowdy fan doing no harm to anyone including themselves.

Two lads I know were up at Middlesboro last year and were detained getting of a train. To be fair to them they had a few cans on the train up and had a good sing song. When they got off the train they were told to in no uncertain terms to keep quiet and keep moving.

The conversation went something like this

"But officer whats the prob........................."

"Right son your nicked"

Released at 2.30 in the morning with no charge.

It is a complete joke. This country is not far from being a facist state

[Pebs]

Interesting, I've never heard of that piece of legislation. I shall flex my s110 wings asap!

Can't speak for other forces but we stick to the s24 PACE powers which are pretty broad but do have their limits. In fact I've just looked in a 2008 Policing For Dummies ( ) book and there's no mention of this act. Interesting!

I can promise you that the people I work with don't take arresting someone lightly. The paperwork it generates is horrendous! I jest but taking someones liberty for acting like a **** is sometimes harsh but occasionally very necessary.

[Justsomebloke]

Just to say that this thread grew some Legs on Oc & Von very kindly & Politely put me right on a few Facts.
Fortunately I post Frequently & part of the reason is to get other peoples views & opinions on subjects I haven't quite grasped yet. This is a Perfect example of that.

[Von Smallhausen]

Originally Posted by Justsomebloke

Just to say that this thread grew some Legs on Oc & Von very kindly & Politely put me right on a few Facts.
Fortunately I post Frequently & part of the reason is to get other peoples views & opinions on subjects I haven't quite grasped yet. This is a Perfect example of that.

Cheers malc. Although indiscressions happen, I would say it isn't the norm.

Below is that post. For info.

' What he fails to mention, maybe conveniently, is that the recent SOCA amendment effectively replaced what was embedded in the old Section 25 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act which was on the statute books when he was on the force.

Before the SOCA Act became law, there were offences which were effectively summary, arrestable and serious arrestable and summary offences largely had no power of arrest such as common assault, littering etc.

If you stopped someone who littered you could give them a ticket for it but had to be sure of their details and that they weren't duff. Section 25 was in place at that time so you had a power of arrest for a non-arrestable offences if you couldn't ascertain who they were, where they lived etc. They were known as General Arrest Conditions.

When the new SOCA Act came in, Sec 25 was repealed and is now no longer on the statute books and the old Section 24 which originally covered arrestable offences was amended as all offences became arrestable.

However, with the new law where all offences became arrestable, you had to meet certain criteria when arresting someone and Section 24 now stipulates that you MUST meet what is called a Neccessity Test before the arrestee is accepted into custody.

The relevant section of S24 for the requirements of the arrest are,

(5) The reasons are—
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b) correspondingly as regards the person’s address;
(c) to prevent the person in question—
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

Section 24 is not carte blanche in that you can arrest for littering and that's it. If you don't meet the requirements then a custody sergeant will send you packing and you are liable to be sued for unlawful arrest and be ripped apart by a defence brief should it reach court.

Mr Gilbertson, it seems, has omitted several facts to make himself look good when in fact he has made himself look like a fool. '