header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 February 2021 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7920 / Categories: Features , Public , Criminal
printer mail-detail

(Re)setting the PACE

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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 in

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll