POLICE POWERS

1. Bella has been arrested on suspicion of committing murder and taken to her local police
station. Explain how Bella should be detained and treated at a police station. Assess whether
the law adequately protects her rights in this situation. 2021_11_N

When Bella is arrested on suspicion of committing murder and taken to her local police station in the
UK, she should be detained and treated in accordance with the legal framework established to
protect her rights. The primary legislation governing the detention and treatment of individuals at
police stations is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), supplemented by the Codes of
Practice issued under PACE.

Under PACE, Bella should be informed of the reasons for her arrest, which should be based on
reasonable grounds to suspect her involvement in the offense. She should also be informed of her
rights, including the right to legal representation and the right to have someone informed of her
arrest. Bella has the right to consult with a solicitor privately, either through a duty solicitor or one of
her choice.

Bella should be detained in appropriate and secure custody facilities at the police station, separate
from other detainees where necessary. The police should ensure her safety, dignity, and welfare
during her detention. They should provide her with necessary facilities, such as access to food, water,
and medical attention if required. Bella should also be allowed to use toilet facilities privately.

During her time at the police station, Bella may be interviewed by the police as part of the
investigation. The interviews should be conducted in accordance with PACE, ensuring fairness and
adherence to procedural safeguards. Bella should be cautioned before the interview, and any
statements she makes should be recorded accurately and without coercion.

The law aims to protect Bella's rights during her detention and treatment at the police station.
However, the adequacy of these protections can be subject to debate. Critics argue that there are
instances where the rights of individuals may be infringed upon, such as during prolonged detention
without charge or inadequate access to legal representation. However, the legal framework and the
codes of practice are designed to provide a balance between protecting the rights of the individual
and enabling effective investigation of crimes.

To assess the adequacy of rights protection, let's consider the case of R (on the application of
Cadder) v. HM Advocate (2010) in the UK. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights found
that the previous Scottish legal practice of allowing police interviews without access to legal advice
breached an individual's rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This led
to reforms in the law to ensure access to legal representation during police detention in Scotland.

While instances of potential rights infringement can occur, the legal framework and the case law
developments demonstrate efforts to protect the rights of individuals in police custody. It is
important for individuals like Bella to be aware of their rights and seek legal advice to ensure their
rights are upheld during the detention and investigative process.

In conclusion, when Bella is detained at a police station on suspicion of murder, she should be
detained and treated in accordance with PACE and the Codes of Practice. These legal provisions aim
to protect her rights, including the right to legal representation, the right to be informed of the
reasons for her arrest, and the right to be treated with dignity and respect. While debates regarding
the adequacy of rights protection exist, legal developments and case law demonstrate efforts to
 strike a balance between effective investigations and protecting the rights of individuals in police
custody.

2. Explain the law that governs the treatment of individuals in custody at a police station. Assess
whether the law is adequate to protect individuals in these circumstances. [25] 2022_12_N
The law that governs the treatment of individuals in custody at a police station is primarily
regulated by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), along with its accompanying codes
of practice. PACE sets out the rights and safeguards for individuals in police custody and aims to
ensure fair treatment, protection of their rights, and the prevention of abuse.

Under PACE, individuals in police custody have certain rights, such as the right to be informed of
the reasons for their arrest, the right to legal representation, and the right to consult privately with
their solicitor. The Act also outlines the procedures for detention, including the maximum period of
detention without charge and the need for regular reviews of detention.

One of the significant aspects of PACE is the requirement for police officers to inform detainees of
their rights and entitlements, known as the "PACE caution." This caution reminds individuals of
their right to remain silent and that anything they say may be used as evidence against them.
Failure to provide this caution can have implications for the admissibility of evidence in court.

Furthermore, PACE has established safeguards to protect the welfare of individuals in custody. It
requires the provision of appropriate medical care, including access to a doctor if needed. It also
sets out guidelines for the treatment of vulnerable detainees, such as juveniles, those with mental
health issues, or individuals with limited understanding of English.

Additionally, PACE includes provisions to regulate police powers, such as the authority to conduct
searches, seize property, and take fingerprints or DNA samples. These powers are subject to
specific criteria and limitations to prevent their misuse.

Despite the existence of PACE and its safeguards, concerns have been raised about the adequacy of
the law to protect individuals in police custody. Critics argue that the balance between individual
rights and the powers of the police may not always be well-maintained, leading to potential abuses
of authority.

One case that highlights the challenges in protecting individuals in custody is the death of Rashan
Charles in 2017. Rashan Charles died after being apprehended by the police in London. The
incident raised questions about the use of force by the police and the subsequent treatment of Mr.
Charles while in custody. It prompted a review of police procedures and accountability measures.

This case, along with others, has led to calls for reform and greater transparency in the treatment
of individuals in police custody. Critics argue that PACE should be revised to provide stronger
safeguards against abuses of power, particularly regarding the use of force, treatment of vulnerable
detainees, and access to legal representation.

In response to these concerns, the Independent Review of the Police Complaints and Discipline
System was conducted in 2020, making several recommendations for improving the oversight and
accountability of the police. The review called for clearer guidance on the use of force, improved
 training for police officers, and enhanced mechanisms for independent investigations into serious
incidents.

In conclusion, while the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides a framework for the
treatment of individuals in police custody in the UK, there are ongoing debates about its adequacy
to fully protect the rights and well-being of detainees. Recent cases and reviews have highlighted
the need for reforms to address potential abuses of power and strengthen safeguards. It is essential
to continue monitoring and reviewing the legislation to ensure that it remains effective in
protecting individuals' rights and preventing abuses in custody settings.
3. Marie has been arrested for theft of a car and taken to Barchester Police Station for questioning.
Explain Marie’s rights once she arrives at the police station. Assess the extent to which these rights
make the job of the police investigating crime difficult.
2020_13_J
Once Marie arrives at Barchester Police Station for questioning after being arrested for theft of a
car, she is entitled to certain rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and its
accompanying codes of practice. These rights are designed to protect the rights of individuals in
police custody and ensure fair treatment during the investigation process.

Firstly, Marie has the right to be informed of the reasons for her arrest. This right is essential as it
ensures that individuals are aware of the specific allegations against them and the basis for their
detention. The police must provide a clear and accurate explanation of the grounds for the arrest,
as stated in Section 28 of PACE.

Secondly, Marie has the right to legal representation. PACE grants the right to consult with a
solicitor, free of charge, upon arrest and throughout the detention period. This right is crucial for
ensuring that individuals have access to legal advice and can make informed decisions during the
questioning process. It helps to balance the power dynamics between the police and the detainee
and ensures the protection of their legal rights.

Additionally, Marie has the right to remain silent. This right, commonly known as the right to
silence, allows her to decline answering questions during the police interview without any adverse
inferences being drawn against her. Section 34 of PACE safeguards this right and prevents self-
incrimination.

Furthermore, Marie is entitled to receive the PACE caution, also known as the "Miranda warning."
This caution informs her that she has the right to remain silent and that anything she says may be
used as evidence against her in court. The caution serves as a reminder of her rights and helps
ensure that her statements are made voluntarily and without coercion.

These rights granted to Marie can potentially make the job of the police investigating crime more
difficult. The right to legal representation, for instance, allows detainees like Marie to seek legal
advice and guidance during questioning. This can result in individuals being more cautious about
providing information to the police, potentially impeding the investigation.

The right to remain silent can also present challenges for the police. If Marie chooses not to answer
questions, it may hinder the collection of crucial evidence or delay the investigation. However, it is
important to note that the right to silence is a fundamental principle of criminal justice systems and
serves to protect individuals from self-incrimination and undue pressure during the investigation
process.

It is worth mentioning a relevant case in the UK that illustrates the importance of these rights and
their impact on police investigations. In the case of R v. Sang (2010), the Court of Appeal
highlighted the significance of the right to legal representation. The court ruled that the
defendant's rights were breached when the police failed to inform him of his right to have a
solicitor present during an interview. The case emphasized the importance of upholding detainees'
rights to ensure a fair trial and the admissibility of evidence.

In conclusion, upon her arrival at the police station, Marie is entitled to rights under the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984. These rights, such as being informed of the reasons for arrest, the right
to legal representation, the right to remain silent, and the receipt of the PACE caution, are crucial
for safeguarding the rights of individuals in police custody. While these rights may pose challenges
for the police in their investigative work, they are necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of
the criminal justice system. It is essential to strike a balance between protecting the rights of
individuals and enabling effective law enforcement.