header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 April 2007 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7268 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public , Community care
printer mail-detail

Change of PACE

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Michael Zander QC considers whether the new Home Office review of PACE is good news

The Home Office has established a fresh and fundamental review of PACE, Modernising Police Powers: Review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The consultation paper (CP), issued on 14 March 2007, calls for suggestions on a great variety of topics. It is difficult to know whether the prospect should be viewed with optimism or pessimism. What is the agenda driving the review? Does it portend dismantling or weakening of basic PACE structures and systems or will it lead to useful improvements? Is the consultation exercise genuine or merely a cover for changes the Home Office has already decided on?

In his foreword, the Minister for Police and Security, Tony McNulty, having lauded the safeguards in the system, writes of “bureaucratic processes and over-complicated procedures in the application of these safeguards which do not serve the best interests of the police, or the criminal justice system or, importantly, those of the victim”. This sounds like mood

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll