Not guilty, no use handing me a writ while I’m trying to do my bit…

Today’s post has been written in response to the news published today that a suspected burglar has been shot during an incident in Worcestershire. As this is a developing story the details are rather scarce and whilst it is not clear at the current time exactly what had happened, I anticipate that the report is likely to bring back into focus the debate on what housekeepers can do to protect their properties and how the police deal with such reports.

Whilst I am going to touch on what the law says about what you can – and perhaps more importantly can’t – do if you’re unfortunate enough to confront a burglar in your house, the main aim of this post is to explain why it is the case that victim may end up being arrested along with the burglar himself.

To do this I’m going to consider the widely reported case of the burglar, John Bennell, who was stabbed by Peter Flanagan during a raid on his Salford home back in June this year. Below is the ITN report on the original incident.

On attending a report of an incident during which someone has received a serious injury or has been killed, it is the role of the police to establish exactly what has happened and under what circumstances.

Whilst media reports of incidents involving home owners using force against intruders ofter portray the matter as a black and white ‘got what he deserved for breaking in’ story, for the officers first on the scene things are rarely as simple and we need to look at the evidence in front of us to establish what has really happened.

People rarely tell us the whole truth and as such we become very skeptical about accepting a version of events without there being something to support it, without the account being tested and compared with those of others so that we can establish some idea about the account’s veracity.

Put simply, if we walk into a house and find a body and someone standing over them with a knife we can’t take their word that the deceased was a burglar and stabbed in self defence.

As we need to be sure that things have indeed happened as the homeowner has claimed, we need to be looking at preserving the scene and asking the homeowner some questions. Because we suspect that homeowner has – rightly or wrongly – killed the intruder we need to be interviewing the homeowner about the matter on tape.

For these reasons – because we need to preserve the scene, gather the evidence and interview – we need to consider arresting the homeowner as again at this point we can’t be entirely sure what has happened.

If you caught my previous blog about arrests, you might remember that we can arrest on suspicion of an offence. This means that being arrested doesn’t necessarily carry an implication of guilt, only that we have reason to suspect a person may have been involved in the commission of a crime.

Having fully investigated what has happened and taken a full account of the incident from the arrested person, we’re then likely to need to consult the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with our evidence.

It is the CPS who decide firstly whether there is enough evidence to take the matter to court and secondly – and crucially in cases such as that considered – is it in the public interest to do so?

Relevant to the use of force by homeowners (or indeed anyone else) is S. 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. It basically allows anyone to use ‘such force as is reasonable’ in the prevention of a crime. The CPS have to look at the case, decide whether the evidence gathered supports the homeowner’s account of events and then consider whether their action was ‘reasonable’ in the given circumstances.

I’ve touched briefly on what may be considered ‘reasonable’ in a previous blog and will say now as I’d said then that the topic could not be done justice over several blogs, let alone a paragraph. Furthermore I wouldn’t even feel qualified to write about it with any authority, such an involved topic it is. I would say though that the easiest way to define a ‘reasonable’ use of force is that the force used was necessary and proportionate to the threat faced and absolutely no more.

Should the CPS, having considered the facts of the case, be satisfied that the actions of the homeowner were necessary, they can rule than a prosecution would not be in the public interest and any charges considered be dropped.

Crucially they cannot make such a decision without a detailed, impartial police investigation beforehand.

On the face of it I can understand that the police arresting someone for ‘protecting their home and family’ may seem contrary to what appears right. It is, however, in the interests of all parties that the matter is fully investigated so that the CPS can act to do the ‘right’ thing.

Well I know I had it coming, I know I can’t be free…

After a couple of recent posts about arrests, I thought it might be interesting to explore what actually happens to an arrested person once they arrive at the block. To do this I’m going to again call upon the assistance of my less than glamorous colleague, Billy, who for whatever reason is currently sitting handcuffed in the rear of a police car and is shortly going to arrive at Walsall Police Station.

Prior to our arrival we will have radioed the control room to inform them that we have ‘one in custody’ and have asked if Walsall are prepared to accept a prisoner. They are and so are awaiting our arrival. Upon pulling up at the door to the block we’ll press the buzzer so the custody staff can let us in and then will sit in the holding area until we are called through to the custody desk.

Depending on how busy the cells are we may be here for a little while so remove Billy’s handcuffs and settle down. We’re not allowed to talk about the offence for which Billy has been arrested but Billy is in a talkative mood and in the course of our conversation unwittingly gives us some very useful information about who’s up to what in his area.

We’re then called round and present Billy to the custody sergeant who asks Billy for his name and date of birth so that he can check the computer to see if Billy is known. Billy is then asked a series of questions about his health and welfare so that the sergeant can judge what risk he might pose to himself or others whilst detained.

The sergeant also authorises us to search Billy to confirm that he is not carrying on his person anything dangerous or prohibited before asking Billy to remove all of his valuables and booking them into property.

The custody sergeant then asks us for the circumstances of the arrest, that is why we suspect Billy to have been involved in the commission of an offence and why we have deemed it necessary to arrest him. Happy that our reasons are sound, the sergeant then informs Billy that he has certain rights and entitlements whist detained.

These are to have someone informed of his arrest, to consult with the codes of practice governing the custody procedure and finally to have access to free and independent legal advice.

In plain terms these rights usually translate as a phone call, access to a copy of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and representation by a solicitor, although they can be delayed if the offence is serious enough and there is a risk the investigation will be adversely affected by not doing so.

Billy is then taken by a member of the custody team to have his fingerprints and photograph taken. Both are performed digitally with the electronic fingerprint machine running a check to confirm that Billy is indeed who is says he is.

This completed, Billy may, depending on why he has been arrested, have to participate in a drugs intervention program which involves him being tested for the presence of controlled substances. Failing this simple test means he then has to attend a consultation with a drugs worker and can be arrested if he decides he’d rather not go.

Irregardless of the reason for his arrest, Billy will be offered the chance to speak to a drugs worker from Addaction who have an office in the block itself and work with prisoners to address their substance abuse issues.

The above processes completed, Billy is now cell bound until the arresting officers are ready to deal with him.

If Billy is drunk when brought into custody he’ll have to sleep off the effects before he can be dealt with. Drugs or injuries often mean a medical professional will have to visit the cells to assess Billy’s health.

A serious offence might require the seizing as evidence of Billy’s clothing meaning he’ll have to make do with a less than fashionable green paper suit to wear for the rest of his stay.

Self harm issues may mean than Billy has to be observed via CCTV camera or a custody officer sitting at the door of his cell on a constant watch.

So this is the initial custody procedure pretty much completed for Billy. He’ll now be sat in a rather small cell with a bed, toilet and little else to occupy him other than his thoughts. Officers will deal with him as soon as they are ready, usually by means of a taped interview, but for the time being he’s in for a long wait!

The warden threw a party in the county jail…

Today’s post is the first of a series of three concentrating on the theme of making an arrest. In this post I look at the circumstances under which police officers can make arrests and why we do it. On Wednesday I’ll be publishing a post on citizens arrests and then come Friday you’ll get a final post on how we deal with people once they’ve been arrested and brought into custody.

Dancin' to the jailhouse rock!

As a police officer I will, from time to time, arrest people. It’s a big part of my job and forms an important part of the investigative process. Speaking to members of the public though I often find that people do not really understand what it means to be arrested and the likely steps that we’ll take after making an arrest. I thought I’d use this blog entry to clarify the process a little for those who are curious, involved in an ongoing case or perhaps even liable to be arrested themselves.

Our powers of arrest come from S. 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This Act (‘PACE’ as we call it) is a fascinating bit of legislation governing everything from our powers of entry to searching, interviewing and making identifications of offenders.

S. 24 gives us the ability to make an arrest on suspicion that a person may have committed an offence, although it then goes on to state that we need to believe that it is necessary to make the arrest over other options.

Reasons that make an arrest ‘necessary’ are listed in the Act and include preventing damage occurring, stopping someone being injured and ensuring a ‘prompt and effective investigation’ which in plain terms usually means that the person needs to be interviewed on tape at a police station.

As we are able to arrest on suspicion, being arrested does not necessarily mean that a person is guilty and nor is it any kind of punishment. Rather it is a temporary deprivation of a person’s liberties judged necessary in the interests of justice.

Unless practicable the grounds of the arrest should be given to the arrested person at the time of their detention and then he or she should usually be taken to a police station where a custody sergeant will be told the grounds of the arrest and decide if said grounds are sufficient to authorise the person’s detention.

After this point the arrested person will likely be interviewed under caution, with a solicitor present if they choose, and asked questions about the offence for which they have been arrested.

If the officers dealing with person have further enquiries to make the person will then be returned to a cell whilst the officers do what they need to do.

The standard detention period is up to twenty four hours, which can be extended under certain circumstances, and whilst a person is detained they are entitled to meals and refreshments.

The custody sergeants are responsible for a prisoner’s welfare whilst at the station and so conduct regular checks and organise medical check ups if they are required.

Having completed their investigation, a decision then has to be made with regards to what to do with the prisoner.

If there is sufficient evidence a prisoner may be ‘charged’ meaning they’ll appear in court to answer the allegations that have been made. A prisoner who has been charged may then be released having been given a court date or instead ‘remanded’ in police custody as it is thought that if they’re released they may commit further offences.

Alternatively if the offence is minor a prisoner may be cautioned or fined and so not have to go to court.

A further option and the less desirable is that it is decided there’s insufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a prisoner is guilty of an offence, hence no further action can be taken and the person released.

If officers have further enquiries to make which are likely to take them beyond a prisoner’s detention period a prisoner can be ‘bailed’ by which they are told to return to the station at a certain time and date, sometimes with conditions not to contact certain people or go to certain places.

The victim should be informed of bail conditions if they are set and a bailed person can be rearrested if they decide they don’t fancy complying with the conditions.

Of course as with anything legal, the above is really only a brief summary as there are all sorts of variations and subtle differences to the procedures depending on circumstances.

An arrest for a Breach of the Peace, an arrest of a drunken person, a juvenile or someone who does not speak English, as examples, will all take different forms and as such it’s important that officers know where the differences are likely to pop up as they can affect how a person will be dealt with post arrest.

I’m hoping that this post will have helped explain the process with a little more clarity and would encourage anyone geeky enough to check out the Police and Criminal Evidence Act itself as it goes into detail about the powers invested in police officers. Alternatively if you find that a little heavy going, I’m happy to answer any further questions you may have!