Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

PACE 78

Case requests, comments, corrections, questions, answers. Just anything an everything about swarb.co.uk

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:23 am

Sorry I find that last comment a little offensive , what extraordinary behaviour?
ARREST AT HOUSE= UNLAWFUL
ENTRY AT HOUSE= UNLAWFUL
SEARCH =UNLAWFUL
He had 3 devices , including his work laptop seized

He comes in the station and is feeling unwell , and as a distress signal he damages a book. Sorry what is so extraordinary about that ?
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:00 am

veritas2409 wrote:Sorry I find that last comment a little offensive , what extraordinary behaviour?
ARREST AT HOUSE= UNLAWFUL
ENTRY AT HOUSE= UNLAWFUL
SEARCH =UNLAWFUL
He had 3 devices , including his work laptop seized

He comes in the station and is feeling unwell , and as a distress signal he damages a book. Sorry what is so extraordinary about that ?


Damaging a book is not an 'ordinary' way of signalling distress.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:17 am

It is extraordinary for someone to destroy the property of another and expect to be treated as the victim.

The OP is badly in need of professional advice. He badly needed that advice at the Police Station. Never, ever, agree to be interviewed by a Police Officer except in the presence of a Solicitor.

Perhaps the search of his premises were unlawful, and if so a proper application to the court to have that evidence excluded *might* be successful, but we are in no position to know whether the circumstances of his case make that likely.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6352
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:31 am

shootist wrote:
veritas2409 wrote:Sorry I find that last comment a little offensive , what extraordinary behaviour?
ARREST AT HOUSE= UNLAWFUL
ENTRY AT HOUSE= UNLAWFUL
SEARCH =UNLAWFUL
He had 3 devices , including his work laptop seized

He comes in the station and is feeling unwell , and as a distress signal he damages a book. Sorry what is so extraordinary about that ?


Damaging a book is not an 'ordinary' way of signalling distress.


Well he had another option ,assault the HCP or other custody staff. Would society of prefered that. Attracting the attention of a custody sergeant who at that precise moment should of been making enquiries about the justification for the arrest , search , seizure and entry by dmaging a book was his only reasonable course of action. On lighter side if the detainee had of read the book himself he would found out about section32/summary only
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:43 am

He had another option. I'll leave you to work it out, verity.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19886
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:12 am

Smouldering Stoat wrote:It is extraordinary for someone to destroy the property of another and expect to be treated as the victim.

The OP is badly in need of professional advice. He badly needed that advice at the Police Station. Never, ever, agree to be interviewed by a Police Officer except in the presence of a Solicitor.

Perhaps the search of his premises were unlawful, and if so a proper application to the court to have that evidence excluded *might* be successful, but we are in no position to know whether the circumstances of his case make that likely.


It is absolutely extraordinary for somebody to be the victim of an unlawful entry , search , seizure and arrest( and you seem to forget this is accepted) , have his health problems ignored and then be brought before the courts for £5 , at the cost of 1000's of pounds. This is a state that seriously considered the case of somebody causing £150k damage to a statue of Lady Thatcher. If his ridiculous argument got such a hearing then I suggest that this isn't that extraordinary


You are absolutely correct about having a solicitor at the station , again yet another breach of PACE , as the detainee wanted one and after 2.5 hours the assigned duty solicitor announced he couldn't do it due to conflicit of interest , the detainee just couldn't wait another 3 hours and stupidity agreed to have the interview without one. Off course as you all know when the detainee changes his mind , an inspector or higher is suppose to speak to him and confirm this in writing in the custody record , and neither happened
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby shootist » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:12 am

So, we have five pages of discussion. You are firm in your convictions of injustice. There is clearly nothing more to be debated. What are you going to do?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:09 pm

Win
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Previous

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest