Powers And Responsibilities) Act 2002 (S36a)
Part A
Introduction
Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), there have been various breaches of procedure. Police whilst in the process of executing an arrest and investigation as well as the matter of assault on Emilie’s behalf will detrimentally effect the progression and outcome of the case at hand.
Breaches of Procedure
Arrest
The first encounter, outlined in the facts is, of police stopping Emilie’s vehicle on the presumption that she was driving under the influence of alcohol. According to s36A ‘LEPRA’, a police officer has the right to stop a vehicle on reasonable grounds. After the certainty of no alcohol indicated from the breath tester , conduct allowed under the rights of police , the reasonable …show more content…
Emilie was not assisted or was offered any food under police custody; this is a breach of procedure on behalf of the police.
The alleged offender while being investigated has the right to the presumption of innocence, this however was not given to Emilie. Emilie showed obvious signs of distress and was granted no medical treatment; the officers failed to present her with immediate medical attention. This is a breach of LEPRA and constitutes in serious consequences.
Ramifications of Breaches
There are a plethora of breaches of procedure varying from arrest, investigation and detainment. Concertedly, these elements will have an effect on the outcome of the case as hand, as such the issue of assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. The notion present in the case DPP v Car talks about arrest as a last resort. As Constable Parker had no grounds to arrest Emilie, the arrest itself constitutes as a breach of power and an unlawful act. Subsequently, the actions succeeding the arrest would not have occurred and the evidence would not be available; Emilie had only assaulted the officer and resisted arrest due to the fact she was unlawfully arrested. The evidence was obtained as a consequence of misconduct and hence should be
Introduction
Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), there have been various breaches of procedure. Police whilst in the process of executing an arrest and investigation as well as the matter of assault on Emilie’s behalf will detrimentally effect the progression and outcome of the case at hand.
Breaches of Procedure
Arrest
The first encounter, outlined in the facts is, of police stopping Emilie’s vehicle on the presumption that she was driving under the influence of alcohol. According to s36A ‘LEPRA’, a police officer has the right to stop a vehicle on reasonable grounds. After the certainty of no alcohol indicated from the breath tester , conduct allowed under the rights of police , the reasonable …show more content…
Emilie was not assisted or was offered any food under police custody; this is a breach of procedure on behalf of the police.
The alleged offender while being investigated has the right to the presumption of innocence, this however was not given to Emilie. Emilie showed obvious signs of distress and was granted no medical treatment; the officers failed to present her with immediate medical attention. This is a breach of LEPRA and constitutes in serious consequences.
Ramifications of Breaches
There are a plethora of breaches of procedure varying from arrest, investigation and detainment. Concertedly, these elements will have an effect on the outcome of the case as hand, as such the issue of assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. The notion present in the case DPP v Car talks about arrest as a last resort. As Constable Parker had no grounds to arrest Emilie, the arrest itself constitutes as a breach of power and an unlawful act. Subsequently, the actions succeeding the arrest would not have occurred and the evidence would not be available; Emilie had only assaulted the officer and resisted arrest due to the fact she was unlawfully arrested. The evidence was obtained as a consequence of misconduct and hence should be