header-logo header-logo

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

Setting the PACE

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll