Exploring A Topical Area Of English Law Of Your Choice

Police officers are faced each day with a vast array of situations with which they must deal. No two situations they encounter are ever the same, even when examines a large number of situations over an extended period of time. The officers are usually in the position of having to make decisions on how to handle a specific matter alone, or with little additional advice and without immediate supervision. This is the heart of police discretion. As we shall find, the exercise of discretion by police has benefits and problems associated with such exercise. The unfettered use of discretion can

This essay will introduce two competing perspectives of policing, they are the orthodox and revisionist perspectives. This essay will then relate the orthodox and revisionist perspectives to the themes of lack of structure, industrialisation and finally hostility. It will then discuss whether the creation of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Robert Peel in 1829 was an effective solution to the changes within society as well as the challenges brought about through crime and disorder. The orthodox view is that the Metropolitan Police were, in fact, a rational decision made to adapt to the needs of the society. They argue that the establishment of the ‘new’ police was inevitable. The revisionist view would state that the ‘new’ police were not a rational decision. They believed that crime and disorder were not increasing, it was just that the ways of counting crime were largely different to previously. The revisionists also believe that the new system was in part beneficial for which to tackle issues that may have occasioned due to the new ‘dangerous class’ (Monkkonen, 1981, p147). In this essay, there will be reference made to the Brixton Riots in 1981 with a clear explanation as to how the orthodox and revisionist perspectives relate to modern policing activities.

Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.

Over the years, the nature of policing has changed and developed drastically. Their role not only entails crime fighting and emergency response, but also social enforcement and social peacekeeping. Bound by a code of ethics, this highly demanding role asks police to remain professional in their dealings with society, and ensure they uphold the law impartially and fairly. When it comes to enforcing the law, it is important to look at the methods and approaches taken by police in order to combat crime, and whether or not they meet current ethical standards. Although this may be the case, it is also important to acknowledge that aspects of police culture such as loyalty, deception and protection of colleagues will ultimately shape the nature of approach to resolving crime, gaining helpful information and protecting fellow officers. Police officers are granted large amounts of discretion within their roles, however, when officers deliberately abuse this amount of discretion and become display misconduct, it becomes challenging to limit discretionary authority of police officers because of the frequent circumstances they encounter where deception may provide highly constructive outcomes. Throughout this essay, methods used by police officers including entrapment, wiretapping and planting of evidence will be assessed for their strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, the ethical standards of these methods and approaches will be assessed as to whether or not they prove as ethically

Through the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), police have certain powers to help them do their jobs and enforce the law. But these powers that police have been granted also have limits to help protect the rights of the victim, the suspect and the society “particularly when these powers affect the civil liberties of members in the community whom the police serve” as stated by the former Attorney-General Robert Debus.

Police have the power to investigate crimes, make arrests, interrogate suspects and gather evidence against the accused. Using their powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (2002) (NSW), police arrested Jessica Silva on the day she committed the offence, 13 May 2012 as they had reasonable grounds to suspect she committed the murder. She was shortly charged with the murder of James Polkinghorne. Police then conducted an interrogation which was recorded in an ERISP of an interview with the accused. The offence was most likely reported on the day by the accused or an eyewitness and Silva was immediately taken into custody. This report most likely came from calling the police on the emergency 000 number. The police also used their powers to investigate the crime in order to be sufficient enough to present a case against the accused in court. The gathering of evidence in this case involved the taking of eye witness statements, statements from those involved including Silva, her brother and her father, and taking photos of the crime scene. It is important that this evidence is obtained carefully and not tampered with, otherwise it would be inadmissible. The police have used technology in investigating the crime through the phone tapping of Polkinghorne’s phone, and the seizing of the SMS messages sent between Silva and Polkinghorne prior to the murder. The phone taps were admissible as they were obtained legally with a warrant, despite being for the investigation of a separate offence. The police were allowed to arrest and detain Silva on the 13 May 2012 because they had reasonable grounds that she committed the illegal offence. The police must issue her a caution, stating why they have arrested her and that if she were to say something it could be used in court against her. The interrogation or asking of questions was

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

Please list the evidence submitted for each task. Indicate the page numbers where the evidence can be found or describe the nature of the evidence (e.g. video,

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

The year, 1984 saw the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, also known as the PACE codes. The PACE codes were an act of parliment, the introduction of these codes was to standardise and proffessionalise police work. It basically provides a core framework of police powers and safeguards around stop and search, arrest, detention, investigation, identification and interviewing suspects. Official dissatisfaction with the rules of the criminal process goes back to the mid 1960's when the Home Office asked the Crimial Law Revision Committee to look into the rules of evidence in criminal cases. After their ill fated 11th Report the Home Office shelved the issue until 1977 when the labour government announced that it was to set

This assessment will focus on Section 1 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Stop and Search powers). I will look at the use of stop and search before the Macpherson report and after the Macpherson report and compare how it has changed. The use of stop and search powers allow the police to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, and to prevent more serious crimes occurring generally in public places like a Football match. A police officer can ask what you are doing, why you’re in an area and/or where you’re going. They also have the power to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying; illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen

Safety is a fundamental right that we all deserve. Most of us rely on the government to provide this security. We pay for this through taxes, but the question that we must ask ourselves is are we getting what we are paying for? By paying our taxes to the government we are giving it the authority to choose the service we are getting back. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative

The role of the custody officer was created by the Police and Criminal evidence act 1984 (PACE act). Throughout this essay I will be discussing the role of the custody officer and exploring the stages that must be undertaken when a person is detained and processed through custody post arrest. I will also discuss the various sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 that are affected when a person is detained, the limits of a persons detention, and the processes that must be undertaken if the custody officer wishes to extend the time that a person is kept in custody. I will be exploring the duties of the custody officer and what the job role entails on a day to day basis. Whatever is done by the custody officer is to be undertaken in a certain

This report shall examine the role of the police in the criminal justice system. For background it will detail a brief history of the development of the police then look at the later development of police powers of arrest, detention and of stop and search. Further to this it will examine the role of the police in miscarriages of justice and the effects of these miscarriages on the development of safeguards for people detained by the police. Also the measures taken to prevent further miscarriages of justice such as the development of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide if the evidence is there and a prosecution is likely to be successful.