Auditors

[Sc Diceman 3]

 

Normally you can watch these and understand the reasoning behind some of the decisions but this was a mess from the start. 'not detained but you can't go anywhere'

 

[MajorDisaster + 579]

Just another gobby, stroppy teenager who thinks he knows better than the police.

[Burnsy2023 2,895]

Just another gobby, stroppy teenager who thinks he knows better than the police.

​I don't know what the law is exactly north of the border but this is what I see from where I'm sat:

The boy on the video was pretty polite and reasonable given the circumstances.

He specifically asked if he was being detained.  The answer was no.  Am I right in thinking that Police Scotland had no powers to use force to get him to remain?  If this was E&W, if I have someone who may be involved in an incident and I want their details, I have two options: let them leave or arrest them.  If I am arresting them then I need to make it clear to them that they are being arrested and they are not free to leave.

Again I don't know about Scots law, but if he's just a witness, is there anything compelling him to cooperate?

He's being awkward but there's nothing I'm aware of that prohibits that.  Normally I'd agree that teenagers who generally get involved in these sorts of videos are a PITA but this video makes me feel uncomfortable.  If he was merely a witness to a crime and didn't want to cooperate, went to leave, was prevented from doing so (possibly) without any power to do so and then arrested for police assault.  That to me feels like the ways and means act going too far.

This whole incident could have been dealt with a lot better in my opinion.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Burnsy2023

[Milankovitch + 3,445]

​I don't know what the law is exactly north of the border but this is what I see from where I'm sat:

The boy on the video was pretty polite and reasonable given the circumstances.

He specifically asked if he was being detained.  The answer was no.  Am I right in thinking that Police Scotland had no powers to use force to get him to remain?  If this was E&W, if I have someone who may be involved in an incident and I want their details, I have two options: let them leave or arrest them.  If I am arresting them then I need to make it clear to them that they are being arrested and they are not free to leave.

Again I don't know about Scots law, but if he's just a witness, is there anything compelling him to cooperate?

Yes, he is compelled to co-operate. Somebody who a Constable believes has information relating to an offence is compelled to give their details and can be arrested for not doing so. Anybody who a Constable has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, or is committing, an offence is also required to give their details and remain with officers whilst these are verified.

 

You can only detain somebody for a crime punishable by imprisonment (failing to give your details isn't) so he wasn't and couldn't have been detained for refusing but can be arrested for it (as he was). Being detained, and being arrested, are two distinct concepts in Scots law.

He's being awkward but there's nothing I'm aware of that prohibits that.  Normally I'd agree that teenagers who generally get involved in these sorts of videos are a PITA but this video makes me feel uncomfortable.  If he was merely a witness to a crime and didn't want to cooperate, went to leave, was prevented from doing so (possibly) without any power to do so and then arrested for police assault.  That to me feels like the ways and means act going too far.

This whole incident could have been dealt with a lot better in my opinion.

​It seems to be you complete ignorance of Scots law that leads you to that conclusion more than anything, I think it was well handled. They knew their powers, utilised them well and didn't let his silly antics carry on for too long. He had to give his details, he refused and was arrested. Ways and means doesn't come into it at all.

[martin + 94]

Again I don't know about Scots law, but if he's just a witness, is there anything compelling him to cooperate?

Yes. S13 CPSA 1995 allows a constable to require suspects & witnesses to provide their personal details. There is an additional power to compel suspects to remain while their details are verified and reasonable force may be used to do so.

It possibly wasn't explained to the boy very well but they were perhaps hesitant to use the word detained because they didn't want him to think he was being detained under S14 CPSA 1995. Although he was polite enough he wasn't interesting in listening. He kept trying to talk over the officers and walk off. Unfortunately he's one of these people who thinks he knows the law but doesn't and hence gets himself into bother.

The officer probably could have explained that he was being detained as a suspect under S13 CPSA 1995 (which allows the use of reasonable force to require him to remain) better but likewise, he needs to be given the opportunity to say it which the teenager wasn't allowing. 

[Burnsy2023 2,895]

Yes, he is compelled to co-operate. Somebody who a Constable believes has information relating to an offence is compelled to give their details and can be arrested for not doing so. Anybody who a Constable has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, or is committing, an offence is also required to give their details and remain with officers whilst these are verified.

 

You can only detain somebody for a crime punishable by imprisonment (failing to give your details isn't) so he wasn't and couldn't have been detained for refusing but can be arrested for it (as he was). Being detained, and being arrested, are two distinct concepts in Scots law.

​It seems to be you complete ignorance of Scots law that leads you to that conclusion more than anything, I think it was well handled. They knew their powers, utilised them well and didn't let his silly antics carry on for too long. He had to give his details, he refused and was arrested. Ways and means doesn't come into it at all.

​So as a witness - remember he was not accused of committing an offence - he was required to remain?

My comment at the end still stands regardless of the law.  They could have approached the situation much better and explained what they were doing in a much clearer way that could have gained compliance without getting hands on.  

[Burnsy2023 2,895]

Yes. S13 CPSA 1995 allows a constable to require suspects & witnesses to provide their personal details. There is an additional power to compel suspects to remain while their details are verified and reasonable force may be used to do so.

It possibly wasn't explained to the boy very well but they were perhaps hesitant to use the word detained because they didn't want him to think he was being detained under S14 CPSA 1995. Although he was polite enough he wasn't interesting in listening. He kept trying to talk over the officers and walk off. Unfortunately he's one of these people who thinks he knows the law but doesn't and hence gets himself into bother.

The officer probably could have explained that he was being detained as a suspect under S13 CPSA 1995 (which allows the use of reasonable force to require him to remain) better but likewise, he needs to be given the opportunity to say it which the teenager wasn't allowing. 

​So I'm still a little fuzzy on this.  Is there a power to compel witnesses to remain and use reasonable force to do so if they refuse to give details even if there is so suspicion that they have committed an offence?  

Edited June 5, 2015 by Burnsy2023

[martin + 94]

My comment at the end still stands regardless of the law.  They could have approached the situation much better and explained what they were doing in a much clearer way that could have gained compliance without getting hands on.  

​I agree communication could have been better. But if you listen to the video you can hear the one of the officers says they "need to go through a procedure" and the boy doesn't let them talk and tries to walk off. Someone who doesn't provide their details is committing an offence and can be arrested.

In practical terms, you can't require someone to give you their details without requiring them to remain with you for a short term. But once a witness has given their details they are free to go whereas a suspect must remain until these can be verified.

[Milankovitch + 3,445]

​So as a witness - remember he was not accused of committing an offence - he was required to remain?

You can't give your details if you have cleared off down the road. In reality they will have to stay with you for a short time as you note their details, you just can't keep them there whilst you verify them (which they didn't try and do in this video because he'd never provided them). Once the requirement has been made, which happened right at the start of the video, he had to give his details or he was going to get lifted. He failed to do so and was arrested. Simple as that.

My comment at the end still stands regardless of the law.  They could have approached the situation much better and explained what they were doing in a much clearer way that could have gained compliance without getting hands on.  

​You've basically accused the officers involved in this of abusing the processes in place without understanding (or even knowing about) them yourself. I think it is a shame that our colleagues south of the border are so quick to stick the boot in when they don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

[Burnsy2023 2,895]

You've basically accused the officers involved in this of abusing the processes in place without understanding (or even knowing about) them yourself. I think it is a shame that our colleagues south of the border are so quick to stick the boot in when they don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about.

​Whilst they've not abused process, this all could have been avoided by telling the guy that if he didn't give details he'd be arrested.  Whilst the Police know the law and procedure, the public rarely do, so you need to explain it clearly and easily - usually that's enough.  I know young people like this are sometimes difficult to get to listen and understand but I've accomplished it with a lot less reasonable people than the boy on the video.

[Milankovitch + 3,445]

The encounter clearly began before he started filming so for all we know that might have been explained to him previously, not that it really matters anyway. You aren't required to tell somebody that they can be arrested for failing to provide their details, they've covered everything they had to cover as far as I can make out in that. He was told in no uncertain terms that he was required to provide his details, he thought he knew better and was arrested. It is as simple as that really.

[Burnsy2023 2,895]

The encounter clearly began before he started filming so for all we know that might have been explained to him previously, not that it really matters anyway. You aren't required to tell somebody that they can be arrested for failing to provide their details, they've covered everything they had to cover as far as I can make out in that. He was told in no uncertain terms that he was required to provide his details, he thought he knew better and was arrested. It is as simple as that really.

Effective policing is as much about the soft communication skills as it is the procedure.  They've not totally alienated someone who could have a perfectly reasonable experience with the Police.  I have seen officers not afford a level of respect to young people which they would to adults purely because of age.

[Sc Diceman 3]

I just thought if the officer said 'you need to give your details or we'll arrest you' in the first minute, it would of fixed this whole situation. 

[ScotLass + 638]

The problem is you don't know how many times the police officers have asked for his details before he turned the camera on.  He could have already been warned, it could have been the fifteenth time he'd refused to give details.

[Milankovitch + 3,445]

I just thought if the officer said 'you need to give your details or we'll arrest you' in the first minute, it would of fixed this whole situation. 

​But then you have no way of knowing whether that was said or not. You are making a lot of assumptions based on a short video clip that only shows part of an incident. We don't know what was said first and even if it wasn't mentioned prior to the camera being turned on I don't think it warrants your suggestion that it was bad policing, they knew their powers and they used them appropriately. Hardly a mess from the start as you suggested. Where is it that you serve?