header-logo header-logo

Setting the PACE

06 March 2008 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7311 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Community care
printer mail-detail

Is a police officer’s duty to provide stop and search information absolute? Neil Parpworth investigates

Of the various powers available to the police to investigate criminal activity, the power to stop and search people is arguably the most controversial. That controversy relates not to the existence of the statutory powers—or at least not to the existence of those stop and search powers for which “reasonable suspicion” is a prerequisite—since few would deny that they are an essential weapon in the armoury of the police officer, but rather to the exercise of such powers.

A considerable body of research—much produced on behalf of the Home Office— suggests that stop and search powers are sometimes used in a discriminatory and disproportionate manner by police officers who are uncertain as to their scope and illinformed as to the safeguards which exist to prevent their abuse. One of those safeguards is the information requirements which are set down in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), ss 2(2) and (3). In the recent case

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