header-logo header-logo

(Re)setting the PACE

10 February 2021 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7920 / Categories: Features , Public , Criminal
printer mail-detail
38899
Neil Parpworth reports on the necessity test for an arrest
  • Reform to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  • Two recent decisions to add to the body of case law on PACE 1984.
  • Judges to reflect ‘long and hard’ when deciding whether an impugned arrest was lawful?

Although s 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) remains the key statutory provision in relation to police powers of arrest, it underwent considerable change as a consequence of reforms made by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Chief among these was the introduction of a necessity requirement. In other words, the power of arrest in respect of a crime which either has been, is being or is about to be committed (or where the arresting officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any of these stages has been reached), may only be exercised where the officer ‘has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned … it is necessary to arrest the person

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll