header-logo header-logo

24 July 2008 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7331 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Under control?

Section 18 of PACE and the interpretation of “occupied or controlled”, by Neil Parpworth

Where a person has been arrested for an indictable (formerly an arrestable) offence, s 18(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, empowers the police to enter and search any premises “occupied or controlled” by the person under arrest where the relevant officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find on the premises evidence relating to the indictable offence for which the person has been arrested, or evidence relating to some other indictable offence which is connected with or similar to that offence. Normally the power of entry and search under s 18 cannot be exercised without the prior written authorisation of an officer of the rank of inspector or above (s 18(4)). However, this is not an absolute restriction on the use of the s 18 power. The written authorisation requirement need not be complied with if the presence of the arrested person is necessary at

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll