I wanted to ask a couple of questions and wondered if anyone could help?
When someone is first arrested does the PACE clock start at the the time of arrival at the police station or the time they were booked into custody. E.G if a DP is outside in a police van waiting for the custody suite to become available is he deemed to have arrived at a police station, and if so has the PACE clock started, though he might not be booked in for a further 30 mins or so?
Once a DP is bailed to return to a particular police station at a particular time, does the PACE clock start when the DP arrives at the police station or when he is booked into custody? Again for example he surrenders to his bail at 12.00pm he is taken from the waiting area and placed in an interview room within the police station (not in the custody suite) whilst waiting for the custody officer to become availble, he was kept there for 45 minutes, then the investigation officers said he could leave for 30 mins but must return for 1.15pm. Is the PACE clock running from the time he arrives at the police station?
If this is the case then the total detention time on the PACE clock has been exceeded and he has not not been charged with any offence. He was also bailed after the time had been exceeded. Is the bail therefore null and void?
If again that is the case, can he still be charged with the offence in question or will the investigating officers have to come up with fresh new evidence to warrant a further arrest?
Sorry for the length of the post, just wondered if anyone knew exactly the position on this.
1. The 24 hours commences on the person's arrival at the police station. It is the relavent time that is triggered by the booking in procedure, and this determines the review times but not the total detention period. As to whether sitting in the van outside amounts to arrival is probably a matter for a court to decide.
2. I've had this argument a few times: if the client answers his bail at 1pm but waits an hour to be taken through, I've argued that were he to up and leave, he'd be prevented from doing so, in which case he is in detention. However, custody officers have the power to wheel the client in and stick him in the cell to await action. Which is better for the client?
3. If the PACE clock has expired, the client should be released immediately. He can't be bailed to return as ther's no time left, and the period can't be extended retrospectively. However, whether the time has expired in this case is arguable.
4. They can always summons him.
It seems to me that you will argue one side, the police will argue another and the court will decide. I suspect the court would favour the prosecution, unless there is anything underhand apparent.
__________________ Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post, I appreciate it.
Again, going through each point individually:-
I agree with your point on this in relation to the "relevant time" and the commencement of the PACE clock on arrival at the police station. Sitting in the police van outside i.e not in the building, however he was within the grounds of the police station which were secured by electric gates. Therefore I would say he has deemed to have arrived at the police station.
Yes I agree, should he have decided to leave then he would have been prevented . The PACE clock started on his arrival at the police station.
In this instance the exceeding of the PACE clock revolves around 2 occasions where the DP arrived at the police station sometime before he was booked in. Instance 1 - after arrest sitting in the police van for 30 minutes whilst waiting for the custody suite to become available and Instance 2 - where the DP had arrived to answer bail and was taken to an interview room (not in custody suite) and waited to be booked in.
The custody record, as it stands today, has 30 minutes remaining on it. If on either of these 2 occasions the DP had deemed to arrive at the police station and the PACE clock was running then the time would have expired. In which case his bail is now null and void.
As you mentioned in your post "underhand" actions by the police, there were a number of instances where abuse of powers were excerised by the police prior to his arrest, but in relation to this case. In my view the case has not been handled fairly by the police.
As regard to the summons, how exactly does this work?
Once again thanks for the time yuo took in your previous post.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum