DB11 + 224 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Just came across this on YouTube. It is footage from a police worn body camera that, from reading the description on YouTube, the defendant obtained from CPS because he is choosing to represent himself at court. Thoughts? I assume that we can't de-arrest someone that has been sprayed, even if the necessity/offence no longer remains?? Good after care given for the use of captor spray I thought Edited April 21, 2015 by DB11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoppedreality + 279 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Not an expert on the legal side of things, but a good bit of proactive dealing when he tried the freeman rubbish of not consenting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotLass + 638 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I have a question - why did they not caution him when they took him to the van? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoppedreality + 279 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I have a question - why did they not caution him when they took him to the van? I think there was a huge 6 or 7 page debate somewhere on here about cautioning someone when arresting them to put them before a court - you're not arresting them to question them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotLass + 638 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I think there was a huge 6 or 7 page debate somewhere on here about cautioning someone when arresting them to put them before a court - you're not arresting them to question them. Ok that makes sense, but weren't they arresting him for obstruct police? As the fine was paid during/after the scuffle/arrest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoppedreality + 279 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Ok that makes sense, but weren't they arresting him for obstruct police? As the fine was paid during/after the scuffle/arrest? Psst, I stopped watching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morek54 695 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) I think there was a huge 6 or 7 page debate somewhere on here about cautioning someone when arresting them to put them before a court - you're not arresting them to question them. That's incorrect. Whilst I haven't seen the other thread you refer to, Code C of the Codes of Practice para 10.1 states that a person must be cautioned before questions are put to them about their suspected involvement in an offence. However, Para 10.4 goes on to state that a person must also be cautioned when arrested, or further arrested, unless it is impractical to do so or they have already been cautioned immediately before arrest. That you may not be arresting them to question them does not alter the requirement to caution someone on arrest. There are many instances when we arrest someone but do not intend to question them. Drunk and disorderly. Drink drive. Public order. All examples. You still have to caution on arrest regardless - unless, of course, it is impractical to do so. Edited April 21, 2015 by morek54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morek54 695 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Thoughts? I assume that we can't de-arrest someone that has been sprayed, even if the necessity/offence no longer remains?? Good after care given for the use of captor spray I thought Why would you presume you cannot de-arrest someone, who has been sprayed? You would have absolutely no option but to, if the grounds for arrest no longer existed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsy2023 2,895 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 That's incorrect. Whilst I haven't seen the other thread you refer to, Code C of the Codes of Practice para 10.1 states that a person must be cautioned before questions are put to them about their suspected involvement in an offence. However, Para 10.4 goes on to state that a person must also be cautioned when arrested, or further arrested, unless it is impractical to do so or they have already been cautioned immediately before arrest. That you may not be arresting them to question them does not alter the requirement to caution someone on arrest. There are many instances when we arrest someone but do not intend to question them. Drunk and disorderly. Drink drive. Public order. All examples. You still have to caution on arrest regardless - unless, of course, it is impractical to do so. The thread stated that if you arrest someone on a court warrant you don't need to caution them because it's not a PACE arrest and this is specificly excluded in the codes of practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsy2023 2,895 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Ok that makes sense, but weren't they arresting him for obstruct police? As the fine was paid during/after the scuffle/arrest? Indeed if they nicked him for that then they should have cautioned him, but they can do that in the van when he's ready to listen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cockney_Doris 29 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 That's incorrect. Whilst I haven't seen the other thread you refer to, Code C of the Codes of Practice para 10.1 states that a person must be cautioned before questions are put to them about their suspected involvement in an offence. However, Para 10.4 goes on to state that a person must also be cautioned when arrested, or further arrested, unless it is impractical to do so or they have already been cautioned immediately before arrest. Code G does not apply to powers of arrest conferred on constables under any arrest warrant, for example, a warrant issued under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, sections 1 or 13, or the Bail Act 1976, section 7(1), or to the powers of constables to arrest without warrant other than under section 24 of PACE for an offence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LankyDan + 293 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Well... He's guilty end of story really. The initial arrest was lawful. The next aspect of it is the obstruct... I'd've locked him up for resist arrest but in any case that is lawful. Yeah de-arrest him for the warrant once it's paid but for me he's still coming in for resist arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotLass + 638 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Indeed if they nicked him for that then they should have cautioned him, but they can do that in the van when he's ready to listen. Okie doke - just curious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorDisaster + 579 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 On the subject when to caution, the advice I have received from several sources is - It's really confusing so caution anyway, far better to give one where you didn't need to rather than fall into a poo-trap by not having given one when you should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsy2023 2,895 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 On the subject when to caution, the advice I have received from several sources is - It's really confusing so caution anyway, far better to give one where you didn't need to rather than fall into a poo-trap by not having given one when you should have. It's not that confusing really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now