The Issues With The Police Treatment Of Guy Lancaster's Case
Part 1
Having reviewed the facts of the case, the issues with the police treatment of Guy Lancaster lie within his arrest, travel to the police station, his detention and the interview conducted. The issues will be analysed in chronological order, referring to the legality of the police’s actions using statutory law. The refusal of Lancaster’s bail application by Magistrates was justified after considering the circumstances of the case.
The first issue with the legality of the police’s treatment of Lancaster lies in his arrest. PC Denman started to inform Lancaster that he was under arrest but was interrupted as Lancaster talked over him. Lancaster should have been told that he was under arrest, the offence he was arrested for and the grounds …show more content…
During the interview, PC Denman told Lancaster that he had the authority to detain him for 3/4 days, an untrue statement to pressure Lancaster to confess. It is unlawful for an interviewer to ‘obtain answers or elicit a statement by… oppression’. Had Lancaster confessed following this form of questioning, the confession may have been inadmissible in court. The interview may have also been inadmissible due to the conditions of the interview. Breaks should be provided at ‘approximately 2 hour intervals’ however, Lancaster was interviewed for 3 hours without any breaks. Had the police had sufficient reason to delay a break, this should have been recorded in the interview record form. Lancaster was subsequently charged with Causing Grievous Bodily …show more content…
It is a fundamental right to be tried by your peers though jurors must act fairly in their decision making as defendants have a right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge in a trial can decide whether it is appropriate for some circumstantial evidence, such as previous convictions, to be used as evidence. If a juror conducts internet research and discovers this information their judgement could be swayed based on the external evidence thus resulting in an unfair trial. Jury misconduct, such as internet research, can have vast repercussions on a case, causing a juror (or whole jury) to be replaced if recognised before verdict, or causing a mistrial if the misconduct is found after
Having reviewed the facts of the case, the issues with the police treatment of Guy Lancaster lie within his arrest, travel to the police station, his detention and the interview conducted. The issues will be analysed in chronological order, referring to the legality of the police’s actions using statutory law. The refusal of Lancaster’s bail application by Magistrates was justified after considering the circumstances of the case.
The first issue with the legality of the police’s treatment of Lancaster lies in his arrest. PC Denman started to inform Lancaster that he was under arrest but was interrupted as Lancaster talked over him. Lancaster should have been told that he was under arrest, the offence he was arrested for and the grounds …show more content…
During the interview, PC Denman told Lancaster that he had the authority to detain him for 3/4 days, an untrue statement to pressure Lancaster to confess. It is unlawful for an interviewer to ‘obtain answers or elicit a statement by… oppression’. Had Lancaster confessed following this form of questioning, the confession may have been inadmissible in court. The interview may have also been inadmissible due to the conditions of the interview. Breaks should be provided at ‘approximately 2 hour intervals’ however, Lancaster was interviewed for 3 hours without any breaks. Had the police had sufficient reason to delay a break, this should have been recorded in the interview record form. Lancaster was subsequently charged with Causing Grievous Bodily …show more content…
It is a fundamental right to be tried by your peers though jurors must act fairly in their decision making as defendants have a right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge in a trial can decide whether it is appropriate for some circumstantial evidence, such as previous convictions, to be used as evidence. If a juror conducts internet research and discovers this information their judgement could be swayed based on the external evidence thus resulting in an unfair trial. Jury misconduct, such as internet research, can have vast repercussions on a case, causing a juror (or whole jury) to be replaced if recognised before verdict, or causing a mistrial if the misconduct is found after