Police And Criminal Evidence Act

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

Both models’ fundamental principal is discovering the truth. The crime control model focuses on the truth regardless of how it is reached whereas the due process model places restrictions on what the state can do to discover the truth. In addition, the crime control model aims for the repression of criminal conduct, whilst the due process model aims to prevent and eliminate crime. Packer’s intentions were not to create two separate models; rather he intended to create a spectrum from one extreme to the other. The Scottish legal system does not wholly consist of crime control elements nor due process elements. It is a mixture of both of these models that attempts to balance the rights of the state to secure a conviction, with the rights of the accused to a fair trial. It can be seen that there is not an appropriate balance between the two as there is not equal and proportionate rights given to both parties, resulting in excessive protection being given to the defendant. This imbalance is best described by discussing the powers of the state in contrast to the defendant’s rights pre-trial and during trial.

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.

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.

The latter case of DPP v Carr (2002) shows many similarities, providing that arrest should and can only be used as a method of last resort, and must not be used for minor offences where the defendant can be identified . In this particular matter, a highly intoxicated Mr Carr was of the belief that police were accusing him of throwing a number of rocks, when this was not the case. This confusion led Mr Carr’s to use offensive language, which provoked the police officer to caution the accused. Mr Carr was then soon after arrested for offensive language because of the continuation of this offence, and also for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duties. The main issue in this matter was whether or not the arrest was lawful, and if so, was it improper. It is important to note that this case was decided before the provisions of LEPRA was passed by the parliament and became valid law meaning the Court had to rely on common law principles to determine its outcome. The arrest for vulgar language in this case was held to be proper because the officer had reasonable suspicion (having witnessed him swearing and

Preventative Detention Orders serve as a viable alternatives to judicial trials, by allowing Police to ‘detain or restrict the movement of individuals without charge or conviction’. External reviews of PDO’s by the Law Council of Australia has deemed these measures ‘justifiably balance security and civil liberties’ by prioritizing community safety over the presumed innocence of terror

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.’

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,

However, post-PACE there have still been injustices. In 1990, the ‘Cardiff Three’ were wrongly convicted of the murder of a prostitute. During police interviewing of the men, the police deployed barbaric interrogation techniques, petrifying the men into signing false confessions (Belloni and Hodgson, 2000. pg. 10). These confessions, used as evidence against the men in court, wrongly imprisoned them. However, two years later in 1992, the scandalous nature of the police investigation was exposed and the men were released (Campbell, 2013). The court’s decision to quash the sentence exposed the misconduct and institutional racism present in the police. The ‘Cardiff Three’ is an example of the police fabricating confessional evidence, through the torment and torture of the men. All three men were from BAME backgrounds and had consequently been framed for a crime they didn’t commit. Such incidents suggest a discriminatory and racist culture that still exists within the police and court institutions today, and hence, the task of the CJS in England and Wales providing justice for all is unachievable whilst racially discriminatory views within such agencies continue to exist. (number of BAME court

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

3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas

Observers have noted in recent years a shift in government policy toward what is perceived as ‘redressing the balance’ in criminal justice, to be more advantageous to victims and less so to the accused. (have implications for current exclusionary rules)

The due process and crime control models, both created by Stanford University law professor Herbert Packer, represents two opposing method of principles functioning within criminal justice system. Although the models describe the important facets of the politics and practice of criminal justice, both have been criticized since presented by Packer in 1964. Presently both models are acknowledged as imperfect standards to explain the politics and law of criminal justice. The crime control ideal represents traditional principles, whereas the due process belief reflects moderate values; therefore generating conflict evident throughout the years. This paper discusses models, crime control and due process, and how each affects the criminal