Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
PL Topic 2
Transcript of PL Topic 2
Chief Inspectors Report: Adapting to protest
Adapting to Protest: http://inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/docs/ap/G20-final-report.pdf?view=Binary
One of the few elements of the state which is authorised to use force against the general public essential that powers are clearly defined and controlled
Authorises conduct that would otherwise be illegal e.g. holding someone against their will
Key areas of PACE:
s1-5 Stop and search of persons and vechicles
s8-23 and s32 Search of premises
s24-31 Powers of arrest
s34-65 Detention and questioning of suspects
s76 Confession evidence
s78 Exclusion of evidence at court
Rice v Connolly: Limits the scope of "obstruction"
 QB 414
Facts: The police were investigating a serious of break-ins during the night, and saw Rice behaving suspiciously in the early hours of the morning. They therefore stopped him and asked him for his name and address, and then asked him to accompany them to a police box to confirm his identity. Rice refused. He was arrested for obstruction and convicted by Grimsby magistrates, and then again on appeal to Grimsby Quarter Sessions.[note] He then appealed by ‘case stated’ (i.e. on a matter of law) to the Divisional Court. His appeal was upheld and his conviction quashed: this is the judgment of the Divisional Court in upholding his appeal.
Summary of the judgment
The judgment turned on the meaning of the word “wilfully” in the obstruction charge. It was deemed to mean “without lawful excuse” and the judges then considered whether Rice had a lawful excuse for refusing to give his name and address or go to the police box. They decided that he did, because of the legal right to silence.
Jackman was a police officer who suspected that Donnely had committed an offence.
Jackman tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'I want to talk to you'. Donnely said, 'Go away'.
Jackman tapped him again. Donnely turned away and hit him so that he fell on the pavement.
Jackman was correct in tapping Donnely on the shoulder.
CON The least touching in anger is a battery - COLE v. TURNER (1704)
But this was part of his daily job.
Donnely v. Jackman 1970
The least touching of another in anger is
Defences: DONNELY v. JACKSON (1970)
The rule that an arrestee must be informed of the true ground for the arrest was established in the leading case of Christie v Leachinsky where it was held that it was the constitutional right of every citizen to know why he is being detained, so that he will be in a position to know whether he is entitled to resisit arrest.
Christie v Leachinsky 1947
Collins v. Wilcock 1984
Cole v. Turner 1704
Kenlin v Gardiner 1966
held that a person can resist an unlawful detention. However, the level of force must be proportionate.
demonstrates that an illegality can, in effect, be "corrected" when the detainee is properly notified. This could take place on arrival at the police station. Any claim would be limited to the time period prior to being booked into custody as from that point.
Lewis v Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary 1991
Sections 56 and 58
Sections 76 and 78
Topic 2: Police Powers
A police officer thought that a woman was soliciting.
He wanted her to stay, but she went away.
He took her arm, she scratched him.
First, the woman was sentenced, but she appealed.
Battery on part of the policeman.
He should have said that he wanted to arrest the woman.