Police and Criminal Essay Example

this, in 1974, four people were arrested and sentenced to life Imprisonment for numerous murders that occurred in a pub In Guilford. The only evidence that was of any use to the courts was four typed confessions, that each of them had signed.

However the suspects all retracted these when taken to trial and claimed that the police had beaten them, starved them and threatened their loved ones unless they signed the confession. Within these confessions there were 153 factual Inconsistencies, which led to suspicions arising within the police force (Presenter, 2009). Immediately after this the 'Maguire Seven' case in 1976, where seven were arrested and charged with possession of an explosive substance, police raided the house after being tipped off that Anne Maguire had taught people how to make bombs.

Forensic tests were completed and traces of the substance found on a pair of gloves, however it was argued that this may have been obtained through a visitor leaving traces behind (Presenter, 2009). The Home Office continued to disregard the fact that something deed to be done, up until 1977 when the government revealed it was creating a Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure to look at the Investigation of crimes, police powers and duties, and also the rights and duties of the suspects (Gander, 1990). OAF region, where more than one hundred police officers were involved in arresting the looters and muggers who were involved and in the area, the rioting continued to become out of control spreading across London and up to Liverpool and Manchester with the police being the main target. A Judge who goes by the name Lord Cascara inducted an

inquiry into these riots, who overall highly praised the police in dealing with them. He also supported the idea of strengthening the police force to deal with crimes more efficiently; he also wanted to make the police more aware of racial reactions (Rattan, 2003).

Moreover Lord Cascara found that the riots had become out of hand due to both poverty and poor economic choices, but also from the publics anger and bitterness towards the way the police went about certain investigative techniques, especially their excessive use of stop and search powers, particularly within the black community.

In addition, Lord Cascara concluded that there was a huge need to improve policing techniques. From this extensive report the much needed legislative report was created: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (PACE) (Pep, 2010).

As mentioned above, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was introduced following a report that showed some reform in the investigative process was needed. It was introduced to protect the freedom of individuals (Mitchell & Dianna, 2003). The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is made up of various codes and sections, those covered include: stop and search, arrest, detention, investigation, identification, and interviewing detainees (GOB 2013). Code A is the code of practice that must be used by police when dealing with stopping and searching.

Code B is used for searching of premises and seizing any items found on premises or persons. Code C deals with detention of a suspect, the treatment of them whilst in detention and the questioning that takes place. Code D is used for the identification of persons by police officers and finally Code E is tape

recordings and interviews of suspects Season-Lloyd, 2005). Code A lays out the rules on what can be classed as 'reasonable rounds for suspicion' in regards to stopping and searching an individual.

It involves a need for the presence of a reason for the suspicion, based on facts.

Without reliable supporting intelligence or information or some specific behavior by the person concerned.. ' this means that the police were no longer allowed to stop and search people based on the persons background, ethnicity, clothing etc, which is what Cascara wanted to achieve. (Malison, 2007). However further acts such as the Terrorism Act 2000 (S.

44) have been introduced which seems to be bringing about further unfair and illegal stop and searches of certain ethnicities. Police have been criticized for using this law which allows them to make random searches in any circumstances (BBC, 2010).

Code A also made it essential for police officers carrying out the stop and search to provide the individuals with certain information, including the reason behind the search and details of identification, Code A has since been revised a number of times to also make it necessary to keep written records of stops even if no search is undertook (Mitchell & Dianna, 2003). This helps stop false complaints from those being stopped and also to protect the public from officer misconduct (Delegate, 2011).

Other problems that had been bought up in both the Fisher and Cascara report was that of detention and arrest, which is now protected by Code C and G of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This code makes sure that precisely to stop any breach of human rights

with full Justification (Newbury, Williamson & Wright , 2012). Code G provides that anyone who is arrested will be given a formal caution when convenient, the caution given by officers is: Mimi do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

This is an extremely vital part of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in regards to arrest as it makes it clear that the police officer is setting out the arrestee's rights but it also recognizes the powers of the police in carrying out their investigations (Mitchell & Adding, 2007).

The Police and Criminal Evidence act helps maintain the balance between police powers and the protection of the liberty and rights of the public (GOB, 2013). Evidently The Police and Criminal Evidence Act has helped in the process of investigation as it has given the police the powers they need in order to catch the criminals (Nash & Williams, 2010).

Prior to the introduction of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act in 1984 there were cases such as the Birmingham six and Guilford four, where evidence was manipulated, and confessions forced, which therefore led to wrongful convictions (Volcanoes & Stack, 2010). Due to the reforms made in The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Code C now protects the individual from being treated incorrectly whilst being detained; it requires the custody officer to keep records of each individual and it also states that the suspects must be told their rights, allowed to contact a solicitor, and also

a relative or friend (Mothers & Riddle 1999).

As seen in cases such as the Birmingham Six, and the Guilford four, police are eager to get convictions, which consequently led to wrongful convictions.

However this has helped to shape police practice today, especially the way in which interviews are carried out (Mitchell & Casey 2007).

Code E of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act was introduced to stop such claims of misconduct, the recording helps to instill confidence in its fairness and consistency, however there is a problem with purely audio recordings, as it does not record any non-verbal actions that may be altering the suspects answers, which is why PACE also introduced Code F to visually record interviews as well, this has helped the investigative process, as It stops false allegations of being forced into confessions and allows both the suspect and the police officer to be protected by their rights (Connie, Brained &Burton 2007).

Once recordings have been made, some forces have introduced writing a summary of the recording, which saves expense of listening through the tapes again, this has aided the investigative process by speeding things up, and stopping police officers getting bombarded with preparing summaries and existing through tapes (Gander 1990). Even though the Act has proved to help the investigative process, this is only if it it is enforced correctly.

However, the case of Osama V Southward Crown Court (1999) showed that not all police officers do adhere to the rules they have been given in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, in this case the police officers did not give the required details of themselves and their station, set

out in Code A of the Act, this therefore rendered the search as unlawful (Propagator, 2012).

Another unlawful case is Laughlin V Chief Constable of Essex 1997) where the police did not provide the reason for entry to the property which is necessary by the Police And Criminal Evidence Act, leaving the search illegitimate took place on the home of the white, in which the police used unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive force.

White then sued the police for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution (Stone, 1989).

These cases prove that whilst there has been extensive work put into making a tight and Just Police and Criminal Evidence Act, it only works the way it should if the police put it into practice, which as hon. above, it not always the case (Crank, 2010). Overall, as discussed in this essay, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is a very vital and much needed piece of legislation, following such dire miscarriages of Justice.

The act sets out strict and fair codes of practice that police officers must adhere to, of which, these codes were bought out for both the protection of the public, but also the police, in addition it helps the police get their Job done, it allows the police to do everything by the book but still get convictions etc.

The act introduced new rules to deal with protecting errors under interview, rights to communication with solicitors, recording of interviews and fair treatment of both young and mentally disordered people.

Whilst this Act has helped stop any injustices within the investigative process it has also led to police assuming they will be backed up

by the act which in consequence has led to police officers overstepping the mark and breaching their rights as an officer. Therefore whilst the act itself appears to be helping in the investigative process, this is only if the officers actually stick to the rules and codes within the act, which as explained above, does not always happen.