Section 24 Of PACE: Murray V UK 1995
What is a lawful arrest?
Section 24 of PACE sets out the grounds and authority police officers are entitled to in order to make an arrest. These powers were amended in 2005 by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). As a result a new section was added to section 24 therefore enabling the police to arrest anyone who;
a. is about to commit a offence;
b. anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
c. anyone who he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit a offence;
d. anyone who he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.
This section gives police the authority to pretty much arrest anyone for anything provided they abide by the above statements. Also if an offence has …show more content…
been committed an arrest without a warrant is permitted. Section 24 of PACE can be compared or linked to Article 5(1) c. As section 24 is to do with arrest it is important that everyone has the right to liberty.
Are we entitled to liberty?
According to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, we are “guaranteed” physical liberty. How? Well Article 5 states that everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person. A important element of Article 5 is Article 5(1) c. Article 5(1)c states the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so . As mentioned above in Article 5 (1)c I believe that a case which is of relevance is Christie V Leachinsky 1947. In Christie V Leachinsky 1947 it was held that the arrest was unlawful as it could only be justified if it was known to the person arrested . This indicates that section 24 of PACE and Article 5 do not contradict each other and therefore enable a balance of powers to exist. Or does it?
What is Section 28 of PACE? Does it correspond with Article 5?
Section 28 of PACE states where a person is arrested otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest then the arrest is unlawful.
Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest . Article 5.2 of the ECHR also corresponds with section 28 as it is said that everyone who is arrested must be informed the reason for arrest in a language they understand. Although these requirements have been set out many cases diminished the specified requirements. For example in the case Murray v UK 1995. In this case Murray was arrested and detained without an explanation as to why and despite her rights being breached (ECHR Article5) it was held by the court that no breach was made.
Another case which conflicts with the ideology of balance of powers is the case Brogan v UK1998. In the ECHR Article 5.3 it states that everyone who is arrested or detained must be brought before a judge or officer immediately and shall be entitled to a trial within reasonable time. In saying so four people were detained for 144hours. According to the Terrorism Act detention of seven days maximum is lawful however the judges held that a breach of rights was imposed as stated in Article
5.3.
In the case of Murray v UK1995 it is in my opinion that a breach was made with regards to Article 5.2 and yet the judges still held that no breach of rights was made. Perhaps as Ireland was having many problems with regards to terrorism at this time the judges believed that this was a necessary action for the police to take. The right to liberty and security of an individual is one of the most essential rights of our democratic society and as shown in the cases above it is clear that the cases do not always comply with the ECHR yet rulings of no breach was held. In the case Christie v Leachinsky 1947 the law was established in section 28 of PACE. Cases which I failed to mention above are as follow;
• Lewis v CC of S Wales Constabulary 1991. This case is similar to Murray v UK1995 as two people were arrested without being informed. In court it was decided that although the arrests were unlawful the arrest had become lawful once the reasons were given. However this contradicts the ECHR Article 5.
• Murray v UK also contradicts Article 5 of the ECHR as Murray wasn’t informed immediately that she was being arrested when police had entered her home. However according to the court this was lawful as according to the judge it must have been obvious that an arrest was in progress .
Section 24 of PACE sets out the grounds and authority police officers are entitled to in order to make an arrest. These powers were amended in 2005 by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). As a result a new section was added to section 24 therefore enabling the police to arrest anyone who;
a. is about to commit a offence;
b. anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
c. anyone who he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit a offence;
d. anyone who he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.
This section gives police the authority to pretty much arrest anyone for anything provided they abide by the above statements. Also if an offence has …show more content…
been committed an arrest without a warrant is permitted. Section 24 of PACE can be compared or linked to Article 5(1) c. As section 24 is to do with arrest it is important that everyone has the right to liberty.
Are we entitled to liberty?
According to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, we are “guaranteed” physical liberty. How? Well Article 5 states that everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person. A important element of Article 5 is Article 5(1) c. Article 5(1)c states the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so . As mentioned above in Article 5 (1)c I believe that a case which is of relevance is Christie V Leachinsky 1947. In Christie V Leachinsky 1947 it was held that the arrest was unlawful as it could only be justified if it was known to the person arrested . This indicates that section 24 of PACE and Article 5 do not contradict each other and therefore enable a balance of powers to exist. Or does it?
What is Section 28 of PACE? Does it correspond with Article 5?
Section 28 of PACE states where a person is arrested otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest then the arrest is unlawful.
Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest . Article 5.2 of the ECHR also corresponds with section 28 as it is said that everyone who is arrested must be informed the reason for arrest in a language they understand. Although these requirements have been set out many cases diminished the specified requirements. For example in the case Murray v UK 1995. In this case Murray was arrested and detained without an explanation as to why and despite her rights being breached (ECHR Article5) it was held by the court that no breach was made.
Another case which conflicts with the ideology of balance of powers is the case Brogan v UK1998. In the ECHR Article 5.3 it states that everyone who is arrested or detained must be brought before a judge or officer immediately and shall be entitled to a trial within reasonable time. In saying so four people were detained for 144hours. According to the Terrorism Act detention of seven days maximum is lawful however the judges held that a breach of rights was imposed as stated in Article
5.3.
In the case of Murray v UK1995 it is in my opinion that a breach was made with regards to Article 5.2 and yet the judges still held that no breach of rights was made. Perhaps as Ireland was having many problems with regards to terrorism at this time the judges believed that this was a necessary action for the police to take. The right to liberty and security of an individual is one of the most essential rights of our democratic society and as shown in the cases above it is clear that the cases do not always comply with the ECHR yet rulings of no breach was held. In the case Christie v Leachinsky 1947 the law was established in section 28 of PACE. Cases which I failed to mention above are as follow;
• Lewis v CC of S Wales Constabulary 1991. This case is similar to Murray v UK1995 as two people were arrested without being informed. In court it was decided that although the arrests were unlawful the arrest had become lawful once the reasons were given. However this contradicts the ECHR Article 5.
• Murray v UK also contradicts Article 5 of the ECHR as Murray wasn’t informed immediately that she was being arrested when police had entered her home. However according to the court this was lawful as according to the judge it must have been obvious that an arrest was in progress .