Chapter Updates for Police Powers of Dentention

Section 121(2) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 enables civilians to perform the functions of custody officers as well as police sergeants. The former are named ‘staff custody officers,’ and references to custody officers throughout this chapter (and Chapter 6) will apply to either a police sergeant or a civilian who has been designated this task. Also, note that references to arrestable or serious arrestable offences as a criteria for activating certain police powers under this chapter and Chapter 6, should be replaced by ‘indictable offences’.

Attention is drawn to the revised paragraph 2.15 in Code D which gives the following guidance: ‘Any procedure in this Code involving the participation of a suspect who is mentally disordered, otherwise mentally vulnerable or a juvenile must take place in the presence of the appropriate adult. See Code C paragraph 1.4.’ In addition, the new paragraph 2.15A to Code D states that: ‘Any procedure in this Code involving the participation of a witness who is or appears to be mentally disordered, otherwise mentally vulnerable or a juvenile should take place in the presence of a pre-trial support person. However, the support-person must not be allowed to prompt any identification of a suspect by a witness. See Note 2AB.’ The new Note 2AB provides the following guidance: ‘The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 guidance “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings” indicates that a pre-trial support person should accompany a vulnerable witness during any identification procedure. It states that this support person should not be (or not be likely to be) a witness in the investigation.’ This has particular relevance to pages 186-195 in Chapter 6 and is reproduced there accordingly.

Page 133. The following case should be included:

In R v Grant (2005) the right of a detained suspect to have the confidence of privileged communications with a solicitor, was upheld by the Court of Appeal which held that a deliberate interference with this right seriously undermined the rule of law. In this case, the police deliberately eavesdropped on privileged conversations between the defendant and his solicitor when in the exercise yard of a police station. These conversations were also tape recorded and occurred in parallel with the interview process following the defendant’s arrest for conspiracy to murder. Although nothing prejudicial to the defence was heard during the illicit intercepts, their Lordships considered that the actions of the police was such an affront to the integrity of the justice system that this justified a stay of proceedings on grounds of abuse of process. The defendant’s conviction was therefore quashed.