Sarah Everard & resisting unlawful arrest

[J Newman]

Let's say someone about to be arrested knew for sure the arrest was
unlawful, and might even lead to their rape and murder.

For example, hypothetically speaking, if the arresting officer declared
what they were going to unlawfully do.

Can the person use reasonable force to defend themselves against the police?

Or will the police just keep bringing a bigger and bigger hammer until
they get full compliance (in Sarah's case, her compliance to be raped
and die)?

How will this change if other government agencies are the arresting
body? National Crime Agency, Military Police, HMRC, Border Force, etc?

[Jethro_uk]

I asked this question at the time.

The problem is after the event the belief of the person resisting arrest
(who may well be dead) will need to be assessed as "reasonable" or not.

And even when there have been clear and unambiguous cases of police
officers unlawfully arresting people, that is an insurmountable bar to
reach.

[Spike]

Post by Jethro_uk
I asked this question at the time.
The problem is after the event the belief of the person resisting arrest
(who may well be dead) will need to be assessed as "reasonable" or not.
And even when there have been clear and unambiguous cases of police
officers unlawfully arresting people, that is an insurmountable bar to
reach.

That means that in effect, a police officer’s power of arrest operates in
much the same way as did the US Army’s ‘free fire zone’ policy in Vietnam,
and probably does as much to inspire a proper outcome to the proceedings.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Spike

Post by Jethro_uk
I asked this question at the time.
The problem is after the event the belief of the person resisting
arrest (who may well be dead) will need to be assessed as "reasonable"
or not.
And even when there have been clear and unambiguous cases of police
officers unlawfully arresting people, that is an insurmountable bar to
reach.

That means that in effect, a police officer’s power of arrest operates
in much the same way as did the US Army’s ‘free fire zone’ policy in
Vietnam,
and probably does as much to inspire a proper outcome to the
proceedings.

Ultimately it is in no one's interests if a member of the public can be
excused for not trusting the police and whether they are lawfully
exercising their powers.

Following the Everard tragedy, I don't recall there being any really
serious attempt by the police to demonstrate that they do not abuse their
powers of arrest. In fact my memory is that they proceeded to unlawfully/
illegally arrest the members of the public who attended a vigil for Sarah
Everard.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Spike

Post by Jethro_uk
I asked this question at the time.
The problem is after the event the belief of the person resisting
arrest (who may well be dead) will need to be assessed as "reasonable"
or not.
And even when there have been clear and unambiguous cases of police
officers unlawfully arresting people, that is an insurmountable bar to
reach.

That means that in effect, a police officer’s power of arrest operates
in much the same way as did the US Army’s ‘free fire zone’ policy in
Vietnam,
and probably does as much to inspire a proper outcome to the
proceedings.

Ultimately it is in no one's interests if a member of the public can be
excused for not trusting the police and whether they are lawfully
exercising their powers.
Following the Everard tragedy, I don't recall there being any really
serious attempt by the police to demonstrate that they do not abuse their
powers of arrest. In fact my memory is that they proceeded to unlawfully/
illegally arrest the members of the public who attended a vigil for Sarah
Everard.

The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

[Jeff]

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested for
murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later turns
out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for murder when
she may well have still been alive!

Jeff

[GB]

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested for
murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later turns
out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for murder when
she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence has
been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal* arrest?

I would have thought it's rather rare for the police to have assembled a
complete case (including mens rea, where applicable) before arrest?

Post by Jeff
Jeff

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested for
murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later turns
out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for murder when
she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence has
been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal* arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the
fact that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.

"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

[GB]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested for
murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later turns
out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for murder when
she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence has
been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal* arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the
fact that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.
"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "

If a suspect arrives at a police station for a pre-arranged interview,
the first step the police normally take is to arrest them. That's
clearly unnecessary, and I don't know whether it's lawful. From what you
have said, it probably isn't.

However, I find it a bit far-fetched that the police can't lawfully
arrest a miscreant who appears to be compliant (until the moment he runs
off!).

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested for
murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later turns
out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for murder when
she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence has
been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal* arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the
fact that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.
"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "
If a suspect arrives at a police station for a pre-arranged interview,
the first step the police normally take is to arrest them. That's
clearly unnecessary, and I don't know whether it's lawful. From what you
have said, it probably isn't.
However, I find it a bit far-fetched that the police can't lawfully
arrest a miscreant who appears to be compliant (until the moment he runs
off!).

Why should or would they be able to? Assuming they have been positively
identified, and any necessary searches have already been carried out,
and they don't have a known history of absconding, for what lawful
purpose is it necessary to arrest them?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it
whenever they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of
coercion, but also because it means they have powers of search, can
take DNA samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest
is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence
has been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal*
arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the fact
that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.
"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "
If a suspect arrives at a police station for a pre-arranged interview,
the first step the police normally take is to arrest them. That's
clearly unnecessary, and I don't know whether it's lawful. From what
you have said, it probably isn't.
However, I find it a bit far-fetched that the police can't lawfully
arrest a miscreant who appears to be compliant (until the moment he
runs off!).

Why should or would they be able to? Assuming they have been positively
identified, and any necessary searches have already been carried out,
and they don't have a known history of absconding, for what lawful
purpose is it necessary to arrest them?

To obtain DNA and fingerprints.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it
whenever they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of
coercion, but also because it means they have powers of search, can
take DNA samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest
is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence
has been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal*
arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the fact
that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.
"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "
If a suspect arrives at a police station for a pre-arranged interview,
the first step the police normally take is to arrest them. That's
clearly unnecessary, and I don't know whether it's lawful. From what
you have said, it probably isn't.
However, I find it a bit far-fetched that the police can't lawfully
arrest a miscreant who appears to be compliant (until the moment he
runs off!).

Why should or would they be able to? Assuming they have been positively
identified, and any necessary searches have already been carried out,
and they don't have a known history of absconding, for what lawful
purpose is it necessary to arrest them?

To obtain DNA and fingerprints.

No, that's what the police *want*. It isn't a reason that the arrest
is *necessary*. You might as well say an arrest is "necessary" because
the police want to lock the person in a cell for a bit. If Parliament
wanted to give the police the power to demand DNA and fingerprints from
anyone at any time then they would have passed a law saying so.

[GB]

Post by Jon Ribbens
No, that's what the police *want*. It isn't a reason that the arrest
is *necessary*. You might as well say an arrest is "necessary" because
the police want to lock the person in a cell for a bit. If Parliament
wanted to give the police the power to demand DNA and fingerprints from
anyone at any time then they would have passed a law saying so.

Thank you, Jon, for pointing out that 'necessity' is one of the
requirements for making a lawful arrest.

This is explained in Code G of PACE:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/903814/pace-code-g-2012.pdf

Para 2.9 sets out the various grounds for 'necessity'.

Assuming the suspect is reasonably compliant, most of them don't apply,
but there's a catch all "to allow the prompt and effective investigation
of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question."

Arrest means that the police can search the suspect's premises without a
warrant, for example, and this obviously may enable a prompter and more
effective investigation. It's a bit thin, though?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by GB
Arrest means that the police can search the suspect's premises without a
warrant, for example, and this obviously may enable a prompter and more
effective investigation. It's a bit thin, though?

And obviously even if the arrest is later deemed unlawful, any evidence
from a search will not be excluded from a court.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens
No, that's what the police *want*. It isn't a reason that the arrest
is *necessary*. You might as well say an arrest is "necessary" because
the police want to lock the person in a cell for a bit. If Parliament
wanted to give the police the power to demand DNA and fingerprints from
anyone at any time then they would have passed a law saying so.

Thank you, Jon, for pointing out that 'necessity' is one of the
requirements for making a lawful arrest.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/903814/pace-code-g-2012.pdf
Para 2.9 sets out the various grounds for 'necessity'.
Assuming the suspect is reasonably compliant, most of them don't apply,
but there's a catch all "to allow the prompt and effective investigation
of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question."
Arrest means that the police can search the suspect's premises without a
warrant, for example, and this obviously may enable a prompter and more
effective investigation. It's a bit thin, though?

It's extremely thin. It's very reminiscent of the argument that someone
refusing a voluntary search is suspicious, and is therefore grounds for
a mandatory search, which is an argument I seem to recall the police
tried to use until they were told they couldn't.

The PACE code goes on to explain the concept further though, and makes
it clear that it isn't just a blanket excuse that can apply to any
situation.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it
whenever they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of
coercion, but also because it means they have powers of search, can
take DNA samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest
is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence
has been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal*
arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the fact
that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.
"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "
If a suspect arrives at a police station for a pre-arranged interview,
the first step the police normally take is to arrest them. That's
clearly unnecessary, and I don't know whether it's lawful. From what
you have said, it probably isn't.
However, I find it a bit far-fetched that the police can't lawfully
arrest a miscreant who appears to be compliant (until the moment he
runs off!).

Why should or would they be able to? Assuming they have been positively
identified, and any necessary searches have already been carried out,
and they don't have a known history of absconding, for what lawful
purpose is it necessary to arrest them?

To obtain DNA and fingerprints.

Apologies if sarcasm is intended, But, FTAOD, that is not a lawful reason for
arrest.

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it
whenever they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of
coercion, but also because it means they have powers of search, can
take DNA samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest
is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence
has been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal*
arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the fact
that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.
"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "
If a suspect arrives at a police station for a pre-arranged interview,
the first step the police normally take is to arrest them. That's
clearly unnecessary, and I don't know whether it's lawful. From what
you have said, it probably isn't.
However, I find it a bit far-fetched that the police can't lawfully
arrest a miscreant who appears to be compliant (until the moment he
runs off!).

Why should or would they be able to? Assuming they have been positively
identified, and any necessary searches have already been carried out,
and they don't have a known history of absconding, for what lawful
purpose is it necessary to arrest them?

To obtain DNA and fingerprints.

And in the case of a prisoner arrested for a crime of violence (and
therefore believed to be at least potentially violent), to ensure the
safety of officers and the public?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it
whenever they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of
coercion, but also because it means they have powers of search, can
take DNA samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest
is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence
has been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal*
arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the fact
that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.
"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "
If a suspect arrives at a police station for a pre-arranged interview,
the first step the police normally take is to arrest them. That's
clearly unnecessary, and I don't know whether it's lawful. From what
you have said, it probably isn't.
However, I find it a bit far-fetched that the police can't lawfully
arrest a miscreant who appears to be compliant (until the moment he
runs off!).

Why should or would they be able to? Assuming they have been positively
identified, and any necessary searches have already been carried out,
and they don't have a known history of absconding, for what lawful
purpose is it necessary to arrest them?

To obtain DNA and fingerprints.

And in the case of a prisoner arrested for a crime of violence (and
therefore believed to be at least potentially violent), to ensure the
safety of officers and the public?

That could make arrest necessary, but does not inevitably do so.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it
whenever they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of
coercion, but also because it means they have powers of search, can
take DNA samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest
is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence
has been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal*
arrest?

Yes. That's not the core issue in my view. The problem is when there
is a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a reasonable suspect, and
the police decide they're going to arrest the suspect despite the fact
that the suspect is being entirely co-operative.
"Yes there's no doubt as to your identity, and you've indicated you're
perfectly willing to come down to the police station for an interview,
but we want to put you in handcuffs to intimidate you and we want to
take your DNA and we want to put onerous bail conditions on you, and
anyway it's our standard procedure, so we're going to arrest you even
though it is not in any sense necessary and therefore it is illegal
for us to do so."

The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "
If a suspect arrives at a police station for a pre-arranged interview,
the first step the police normally take is to arrest them. That's
clearly unnecessary, and I don't know whether it's lawful. From what
you have said, it probably isn't.
However, I find it a bit far-fetched that the police can't lawfully
arrest a miscreant who appears to be compliant (until the moment he
runs off!).

Why should or would they be able to? Assuming they have been positively
identified, and any necessary searches have already been carried out,
and they don't have a known history of absconding, for what lawful
purpose is it necessary to arrest them?

To obtain DNA and fingerprints.

And in the case of a prisoner arrested for a crime of violence (and
therefore believed to be at least potentially violent), to ensure the
safety of officers and the public?

That could make arrest necessary, but does not inevitably do so.

My response was actually about handcuffing policy. To this bit in
particular:

"The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so."

[Jethro_uk]

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

And in the case of a prisoner arrested for a crime of violence (and
therefore believed to be at least potentially violent), to ensure the
safety of officers and the public?

But then it becomes a lawful reason to arrest.

This thread is about instances where the police have acted unlawfully.

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by JNugent

[quoted text muted]

And in the case of a prisoner arrested for a crime of violence (and
therefore believed to be at least potentially violent), to ensure the
safety of officers and the public?

But then it becomes a lawful reason to arrest.
This thread is about instances where the police have acted unlawfully.

My response was actually about handcuffing policy (where an arrest is
already deemed necessary). To this bit in particular:

"The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so."

[Handsome Jack]

Post by GB
The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "

The widely-published footage of Lucy Letby's arrest showed her being led
off in handcuffs after the police officers lied their way into her home.
Perhaps they thought this rather slight lady might stab them in the
stomach with an air-filled syringe.

[GB]

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by GB
The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "

The widely-published footage of Lucy Letby's arrest showed her being led
off in handcuffs after the police officers lied their way into her home.
Perhaps they thought this rather slight lady might stab them in the
stomach with an air-filled syringe.

Putting Letby in handcuffs did look decidedly odd, but maybe the case of
Tamzin Hall might explain it? She escaped from a police car on the M5,
and got run over.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/girl-motorway-police-car-tamzin-hall-m5-b1194171.html

It could be argued that someone in Letby's position might be pretty
desperate?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by GB

Post by Handsome Jack

Post by GB
The College of Policing is clear that "Like any type of force, officers
must only use handcuffs when it is lawful, necessary and proportionate
for them to do so. "

The widely-published footage of Lucy Letby's arrest showed her being led
off in handcuffs after the police officers lied their way into her home.
Perhaps they thought this rather slight lady might stab them in the
stomach with an air-filled syringe.

Putting Letby in handcuffs did look decidedly odd, but maybe the case of
Tamzin Hall might explain it? She escaped from a police car on the M5,
and got run over.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/girl-motorway-police-car-tamzin-hall-m5-b1194171.html
It could be argued that someone in Letby's position might be pretty
desperate?

Not sure that handcuffs would stop someone jumping out of a car. The problem
was presumably negligently leaving her unattended so she could climb into the
front seat. Generally I don't suppose the back doors can be opened from the
inside, unless they negligently didn't engage the child locks.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Not sure that handcuffs would stop someone jumping out of a car. The
problem was presumably negligently leaving her unattended so she could
climb into the front seat. Generally I don't suppose the back doors can
be opened from the inside, unless they negligently didn't engage the
child locks.

Where did it say she climbed in the front ?

I really can't see how someone in handcuffs with a seatbelt on could
surreptitiously perform the manoeuvres needed to exit the rear of a car.

Also, why were they stopped ?

The whole "report" is very fact-lite. Which may be because there are
still actions pending.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Not sure that handcuffs would stop someone jumping out of a car. The
problem was presumably negligently leaving her unattended so she could
climb into the front seat. Generally I don't suppose the back doors can
be opened from the inside, unless they negligently didn't engage the
child locks.

Where did it say she climbed in the front ?
I really can't see how someone in handcuffs with a seatbelt on could
surreptitiously perform the manoeuvres needed to exit the rear of a car.
Also, why were they stopped ?
The whole "report" is very fact-lite. Which may be because there are
still actions pending.

There was an episode of The Bill once where a suspect in custody in the back
of a police car suffered from travel sickness. The driver stopped to allow
them to vomit out of the door rather than all over the seat. Having
evacuated their stomach contents, the suspect then took the opportunity of
the stationary car and the open door to make a run for it.

OK, that's fiction. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if something along
those lines was the reason why a police car stopped on the hard shoulder of
a motorway and a suspect escapted from it.

Mark

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Not sure that handcuffs would stop someone jumping out of a car. The
problem was presumably negligently leaving her unattended so she could
climb into the front seat. Generally I don't suppose the back doors
can be opened from the inside, unless they negligently didn't engage
the child locks.

Where did it say she climbed in the front ?
I really can't see how someone in handcuffs with a seatbelt on could
surreptitiously perform the manoeuvres needed to exit the rear of a car.
Also, why were they stopped ?
The whole "report" is very fact-lite. Which may be because there are
still actions pending.

There was an episode of The Bill once where a suspect in custody in the
back of a police car suffered from travel sickness. The driver stopped
to allow them to vomit out of the door rather than all over the seat.
Having evacuated their stomach contents, the suspect then took the
opportunity of the stationary car and the open door to make a run for
it.
OK, that's fiction. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if something
along those lines was the reason why a police car stopped on the hard
shoulder of a motorway and a suspect escaped from it.

It's hard not to suggest this was a Darwinian episode.

Presumably any driving member of the public who stopped on the hard
shoulder to allow a passenger to vomit would not see any charges ?

[JNugent]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Not sure that handcuffs would stop someone jumping out of a car. The
problem was presumably negligently leaving her unattended so she could
climb into the front seat. Generally I don't suppose the back doors
can be opened from the inside, unless they negligently didn't engage
the child locks.

Where did it say she climbed in the front ?
I really can't see how someone in handcuffs with a seatbelt on could
surreptitiously perform the manoeuvres needed to exit the rear of a car.
Also, why were they stopped ?
The whole "report" is very fact-lite. Which may be because there are
still actions pending.

There was an episode of The Bill once where a suspect in custody in the
back of a police car suffered from travel sickness. The driver stopped
to allow them to vomit out of the door rather than all over the seat.
Having evacuated their stomach contents, the suspect then took the
opportunity of the stationary car and the open door to make a run for
it.
OK, that's fiction. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if something
along those lines was the reason why a police car stopped on the hard
shoulder of a motorway and a suspect escaped from it.

It's hard not to suggest this was a Darwinian episode.
Presumably any driving member of the public who stopped on the hard
shoulder to allow a passenger to vomit would not see any charges ?

It would be an emergency.

That's what the hard shoulder is there for.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Not sure that handcuffs would stop someone jumping out of a car. The
problem was presumably negligently leaving her unattended so she could
climb into the front seat. Generally I don't suppose the back doors
can be opened from the inside, unless they negligently didn't engage
the child locks.

Where did it say she climbed in the front ?
I really can't see how someone in handcuffs with a seatbelt on could
surreptitiously perform the manoeuvres needed to exit the rear of a car.
Also, why were they stopped ?
The whole "report" is very fact-lite. Which may be because there are
still actions pending.

There was an episode of The Bill once where a suspect in custody in the
back of a police car suffered from travel sickness. The driver stopped
to allow them to vomit out of the door rather than all over the seat.
Having evacuated their stomach contents, the suspect then took the
opportunity of the stationary car and the open door to make a run for
it.
OK, that's fiction. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if something
along those lines was the reason why a police car stopped on the hard
shoulder of a motorway and a suspect escaped from it.

It's hard not to suggest this was a Darwinian episode.
Presumably any driving member of the public who stopped on the hard
shoulder to allow a passenger to vomit would not see any charges ?

It would be an emergency.
That's what the hard shoulder is there for.

I'm not convinced; they don't stop aeroplanes in similar circumstances. Not
unless they are vomitting copious blood, anyway.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Mark Goodge
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 17:01:19 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roger Hayter

[quoted text muted]

Not sure that handcuffs would stop someone jumping out of a car. The
problem was presumably negligently leaving her unattended so she could
climb into the front seat. Generally I don't suppose the back doors
can be opened from the inside, unless they negligently didn't engage
the child locks.

Where did it say she climbed in the front ?
I really can't see how someone in handcuffs with a seatbelt on could
surreptitiously perform the manoeuvres needed to exit the rear of a car.
Also, why were they stopped ?
The whole "report" is very fact-lite. Which may be because there are
still actions pending.

There was an episode of The Bill once where a suspect in custody in the
back of a police car suffered from travel sickness. The driver stopped
to allow them to vomit out of the door rather than all over the seat.
Having evacuated their stomach contents, the suspect then took the
opportunity of the stationary car and the open door to make a run for
it.
OK, that's fiction. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if something
along those lines was the reason why a police car stopped on the hard
shoulder of a motorway and a suspect escaped from it.

It's hard not to suggest this was a Darwinian episode.
Presumably any driving member of the public who stopped on the hard
shoulder to allow a passenger to vomit would not see any charges ?

It would be an emergency.
That's what the hard shoulder is there for.

I'm not convinced; they don't stop aeroplanes in similar circumstances.

You're right. They don't.

I wonder WHY they don't stop on the hard shoulder?

[Jeff]

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later
turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for
murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence has
been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal* arrest?
I would have thought it's rather rare for the police to have assembled a
complete case (including mens rea, where applicable) before arrest?

But how can you have 'reasonable suspicion' that an offence has taken
place when the person may still be alive or you can't even say how the
person died??

Take another case involving Dorset Police; several people die at a care
home, possibly due to CO poisoning but no post mortems yet carried out.
They immediately arrest the care home manager on suspicion of manslaughter.
A few days later released without charge.

Jeff

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jeff

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later
turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for
murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence has
been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal* arrest?
I would have thought it's rather rare for the police to have assembled a
complete case (including mens rea, where applicable) before arrest?

But how can you have 'reasonable suspicion' that an offence has taken
place when the person may still be alive or you can't even say how the
person died??

A *suspicion* can surely be formed from other evidence or circumstances.
I took a policeman to a flat full of blood once, and he said something
like "fuck me, I'm calling CID" and the gaggle of police that turned up
were clearly of the opinion that it was sufficient blood that someone
was definitely dead, until they discovered that the occupant had been
taken alive to hospital in an ambulance a few days earlier.

Post by Jeff
Take another case involving Dorset Police; several people die at a care
home, possibly due to CO poisoning but no post mortems yet carried out.
They immediately arrest the care home manager on suspicion of manslaughter.
A few days later released without charge.

Yeah this is the sort of thing I'm on about. Once they've confirmed the
person's identity and that they are the care home manager and they're
willing to attend an interview, what possible excuse is there as to why
arresting them is "necessary"?

[GB]

Post by Jon Ribbens
Yeah this is the sort of thing I'm on about. Once they've confirmed the
person's identity and that they are the care home manager and they're
willing to attend an interview, what possible excuse is there as to why
arresting them is "necessary"?

Can anyone complain, or only the person arrested?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens
Yeah this is the sort of thing I'm on about. Once they've confirmed the
person's identity and that they are the care home manager and they're
willing to attend an interview, what possible excuse is there as to why
arresting them is "necessary"?

Can anyone complain, or only the person arrested?

Only the person arrested I would think. And my guess would be that even
if they won in court they would only get like £50 damages, and that no
change would occur to police practices.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jeff

Post by GB

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later
turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for
murder when she may well have still been alive!

I thought that a (reasonable) suspicion that an arrestable offence has
been committed by the arrestee is sufficient for a *legal* arrest?
I would have thought it's rather rare for the police to have assembled a
complete case (including mens rea, where applicable) before arrest?

But how can you have 'reasonable suspicion' that an offence has taken
place when the person may still be alive or you can't even say how the
person died??
Take another case involving Dorset Police; several people die at a care
home, possibly due to CO poisoning but no post mortems yet carried out.
They immediately arrest the care home manager on suspicion of manslaughter.
A few days later released without charge.
Jeff

That would seem to be an obvious case where it was quite unnecessary. The
"crime" scene was already available and could be secured without arrest. And
flight would seem quite unlikely.

[JNugent]

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested for
murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later turns
out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for murder when
she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and until
the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

[Andy Burns]

Post by JNugent
Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and until
the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

Why not arrest on suspicion of causing harm, then upgrade to suspicion
of murder if/when they find a body?

[JNugent]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by JNugent
Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and
until the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

Why not arrest on suspicion of causing harm, then upgrade to suspicion
of murder if/when they find a body?

Good question.

But the central point is the arrest itself.

[Jeff]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by JNugent
Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and
until the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

Why not arrest on suspicion of causing harm, then upgrade to suspicion
of murder if/when they find a body?

What harm?? Let's see the evidence that harm or anything else has taken
place.

If the is evidence, even circumstantial, them yes arrest, but not on
mere gut instinct or as a means to get DNA and search warrants, which is
what seems to happen.

Jeff

[Roland Perry]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and until
the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

That would just encourage murders to go to more lengths to destroy the
body.

[JNugent]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is
*necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

 Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for  murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns  out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when  she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and
until the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

That would just encourage murders to go to more lengths to destroy the
body.

Indeed, though there could be a rationale for that either way,
destroying forensic evidence, etc.

The exchange reminds me of John Haigh, who perpetrated the "acid bath
murders". He was reported as being confident that he could not be
convicted if the victims' bodies had been destroyed (as it happens, with
sulphuric acid). He was hanged in 1949.

[Jeff]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which later
turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest for
murder when she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and until
the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

That is not what I am saying, but in the Gia Pope case the police very
fixated on a suspect that she had made a rape complaint about and they
took their eye off of the ball on the missing persons search. Precious
time was lost, and at the time of the arrest she may well still have
been alive had they looked properly and would have been alive today.

There are plenty of other cases where the police over step the mark.
Arresting someone for causing death by dangerous driving at the scene
seems a popular one, before accident investigators have assessed what
actually happened, and who or what was responsible.

Jeff

[JNugent]

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is
*necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and
until the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

That is not what I am saying, but in the Gia Pope case the police very
fixated on a suspect that she had made a rape complaint about and they
took their eye off of the ball on the missing persons search. Precious
time was lost, and at the time of the arrest she may well still have
been alive had they looked properly and would have been alive today.

I don't recall the Gia Pope cae (no bells rung). I'll look it up.

Post by Jeff
There are plenty of other cases where the police over step the mark.
Arresting someone for causing death by dangerous driving at the scene
seems a popular one, before accident investigators have assessed what
actually happened, and who or what was responsible.

If alcohol is a factor, arrest is mandatory.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and
until the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

That is not what I am saying, but in the Gia Pope case the police very
fixated on a suspect that she had made a rape complaint about and they
took their eye off of the ball on the missing persons search. Precious
time was lost, and at the time of the arrest she may well still have
been alive had they looked properly and would have been alive today.

I don't recall the Gia Pope cae (no bells rung). I'll look it up.

Post by Jeff
There are plenty of other cases where the police over step the mark.
Arresting someone for causing death by dangerous driving at the scene
seems a popular one, before accident investigators have assessed what
actually happened, and who or what was responsible.

If alcohol is a factor, arrest is mandatory.

Only after a drug/alcohol test, or a refusal to do one.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and
until the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

That is not what I am saying, but in the Gia Pope case the police very
fixated on a suspect that she had made a rape complaint about and they
took their eye off of the ball on the missing persons search. Precious
time was lost, and at the time of the arrest she may well still have
been alive had they looked properly and would have been alive today.

I don't recall the Gia Pope cae (no bells rung). I'll look it up.

Post by Jeff
There are plenty of other cases where the police over step the mark.
Arresting someone for causing death by dangerous driving at the scene
seems a popular one, before accident investigators have assessed what
actually happened, and who or what was responsible.

If alcohol is a factor, arrest is mandatory.

Only after a drug/alcohol test, or a refusal to do one.

The point is that there are cases where there is no need to wait for
"accident investigators" to carry out an investigation and where doing
so may well undermine the adminsitration of justice. Alcohol is an example.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and
until the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

That is not what I am saying, but in the Gia Pope case the police very
fixated on a suspect that she had made a rape complaint about and they
took their eye off of the ball on the missing persons search. Precious
time was lost, and at the time of the arrest she may well still have
been alive had they looked properly and would have been alive today.

I don't recall the Gia Pope cae (no bells rung). I'll look it up.

Post by Jeff
There are plenty of other cases where the police over step the mark.
Arresting someone for causing death by dangerous driving at the scene
seems a popular one, before accident investigators have assessed what
actually happened, and who or what was responsible.

If alcohol is a factor, arrest is mandatory.

Only after a drug/alcohol test, or a refusal to do one.

The point is that there are cases where there is no need to wait for
"accident investigators" to carry out an investigation and where doing
so may well undermine the adminsitration of justice. Alcohol is an example.

Also if the driver refuses to identify himself, or is a flight risk, for
instance when driving a stolen car. But it seems to have become routine to
arrest drivers in all such accidents.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Jon Ribbens
The police arrest people illegally *constantly*. They do it whenever
they feel like it, not least because it's a useful tool of coercion,
but also because it means they have powers of search, can take DNA
samples, etc. But it is always illegal unless the arrest is *necessary*.
The system mostly just completely ignores this fact.

Indeed, there are quite a few cases where people have been arrested
for murder before the Police even know the cause of death, which
later turns out not to be murder. In the case of Gaia Pope an arrest
for murder when she may well have still been alive!

Should there never be an arrest on suspicion of murder unless and
until the body of the supposed victim has been found (if at all)?

That is not what I am saying, but in the Gia Pope case the police very
fixated on a suspect that she had made a rape complaint about and they
took their eye off of the ball on the missing persons search. Precious
time was lost, and at the time of the arrest she may well still have
been alive had they looked properly and would have been alive today.

I don't recall the Gia Pope cae (no bells rung). I'll look it up.

Gaia Pope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Gaia_Pope

Mark

[Brian]

Post by J Newman
Let's say someone about to be arrested knew for sure the arrest was
unlawful, and might even lead to their rape and murder.
For example, hypothetically speaking, if the arresting officer declared
what they were going to unlawfully do.
Can the person use reasonable force to defend themselves against the police?
Or will the police just keep bringing a bigger and bigger hammer until
they get full compliance (in Sarah's case, her compliance to be raped
and die)?
How will this change if other government agencies are the arresting
body? National Crime Agency, Military Police, HMRC, Border Force, etc?

I don’t recall if Miss Everard was subjugated by the threat of arrest or
perhaps became a victim - which she clearly was- by virtue of trusting
someone who presented himself as a Police Officer offering assistance.

Either way, the Officer’s conduct ( and that of others ) has done
immeasurable harm - the public should be able to trust the Police without
question.


Sadly, since the Everard case others had come to light - some linked to it
( eg events at Wimbledon) which show the Police - especially the Met
include not only officers who cannot be trusted but others who will protect
them.

More recently, we have seen the Police openly lie to the public and Starmer
use them for his own political motives.

[The Todal]

Post by Brian

Post by J Newman
Let's say someone about to be arrested knew for sure the arrest was
unlawful, and might even lead to their rape and murder.
For example, hypothetically speaking, if the arresting officer declared
what they were going to unlawfully do.
Can the person use reasonable force to defend themselves against the police?
Or will the police just keep bringing a bigger and bigger hammer until
they get full compliance (in Sarah's case, her compliance to be raped
and die)?
How will this change if other government agencies are the arresting
body? National Crime Agency, Military Police, HMRC, Border Force, etc?

I don’t recall if Miss Everard was subjugated by the threat of arrest or
perhaps became a victim - which she clearly was- by virtue of trusting
someone who presented himself as a Police Officer offering assistance.

The police officer, Wayne Couzens, wasn't offering assistance. He was
claiming that she had broken the law by walking down a street without a
valid excuse thereby placing herself in breach of the government's
incompetently designed Covid regulations.

She assumed that as a police officer he was entitled to arrest her, and
that he might be the best judge of what the law was, and I'm sure she
would have wanted to argue her case back at the police station that she
assumed she would be taken to.

I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

I think it was in no less a case than R. v Hulbert that the trial judge
said that if you are unlawfully arrested by a police officer you should
not resist arrest but should submit to it and then pursue a claim for
unlawful arrest.

Some senior police officers who ought to have known better said after
the Everard murder that if you believe you are being unlawfully arrested
you should resist arrest. For example:

The police commissioner for North Yorkshire was highly criticised and
urged to resign for saying murder victim Sarah Everard should not have
‘submitted’ to a false arrest and adding that women “need to be
streetwise” about the powers that police officers have. The comments
made by Mr Allott caused outrage as many claimed he was victim-blaming.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called for him to resign, saying: “He
should go – I can’t think of a more inappropriate thing for a police
crime commissioner to say at this or any time, but in this in
particular. I think he should reconsider his position.”

Post by Brian
Either way, the Officer’s conduct ( and that of others ) has done
immeasurable harm - the public should be able to trust the Police without
question.
Sadly, since the Everard case others had come to light - some linked to it
( eg events at Wimbledon) which show the Police - especially the Met
include not only officers who cannot be trusted but others who will protect
them.
More recently, we have seen the Police openly lie to the public and Starmer
use them for his own political motives.

[Brian]

Post by The Todal

Post by Brian

Post by J Newman
Let's say someone about to be arrested knew for sure the arrest was
unlawful, and might even lead to their rape and murder.
For example, hypothetically speaking, if the arresting officer declared
what they were going to unlawfully do.
Can the person use reasonable force to defend themselves against the police?
Or will the police just keep bringing a bigger and bigger hammer until
they get full compliance (in Sarah's case, her compliance to be raped
and die)?
How will this change if other government agencies are the arresting
body? National Crime Agency, Military Police, HMRC, Border Force, etc?

I don’t recall if Miss Everard was subjugated by the threat of arrest or
perhaps became a victim - which she clearly was- by virtue of trusting
someone who presented himself as a Police Officer offering assistance.

The police officer, Wayne Couzens, wasn't offering assistance. He was
claiming that she had broken the law by walking down a street without a
valid excuse thereby placing herself in breach of the government's
incompetently designed Covid regulations.
She assumed that as a police officer he was entitled to arrest her, and
that he might be the best judge of what the law was, and I'm sure she
would have wanted to argue her case back at the police station that she
assumed she would be taken to.

Thank you for clarifying.

I didn’t recall the details.

Post by The Todal
I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

That is certainly true. There were numerous cases - thankfully with far
less serious consequences- where the regulations led to arrests / court
cases / fines etc.

Post by The Todal
I think it was in no less a case than R. v Hulbert that the trial judge
said that if you are unlawfully arrested by a police officer you should
not resist arrest but should submit to it and then pursue a claim for
unlawful arrest.
Some senior police officers who ought to have known better said after
the Everard murder that if you believe you are being unlawfully arrested
The police commissioner for North Yorkshire was highly criticised and
urged to resign for saying murder victim Sarah Everard should not have
‘submitted’ to a false arrest and adding that women “need to be
streetwise” about the powers that police officers have. The comments
made by Mr Allott caused outrage as many claimed he was victim-blaming.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called for him to resign, saying: “He
should go – I can’t think of a more inappropriate thing for a police
crime commissioner to say at this or any time, but in this in
particular. I think he should reconsider his position.”

There are examples of officers breaking the law while others stand by and
do nothing. They are equally guilty. EVERY Officer has an individual duty
to enforce the law. That includes if he sees a fellow officer breaking it.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 19:54:33 +0000, The Todal <***@icloud.com>
wrote:

[...]

Post by The Todal
I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

Whatever the flaws in the Covid regulations, one thing and one thing
only was *directly* responsible for Sarah Everard's murder - the evil
that was called Wayne Couzens.

[GB]

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by The Todal
I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

Whatever the flaws in the Covid regulations, one thing and one thing
only was *directly* responsible for Sarah Everard's murder - the evil
that was called Wayne Couzens.

I totally agree.

Is there any evidence that it would have made any difference if Sarah
Everard had resisted arrest? Couzens was not particularly big, but he
was a fit policeman (at least in the physical sense). I'd have thought
he would have had little difficulty subduing his victim.

[JNugent]

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by The Todal
I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

Whatever the flaws in the Covid regulations, one thing and one thing
only was *directly* responsible for Sarah Everard's murder - the evil
that was called Wayne Couzens.

Indeed.

The PP seems to have been using "directly" in an unfamiliar sense.

[The Todal]

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by The Todal
I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

Whatever the flaws in the Covid regulations, one thing and one thing
only was *directly* responsible for Sarah Everard's murder - the evil
that was called Wayne Couzens.

Indeed.
The PP seems to have been using "directly" in an unfamiliar sense.

I think the regulations were directly responsible for Sarah Everard's
murder.

In the absence of those regulations, or if the regulations had been more
competently designed and publicised, I am sure the murderer would not
have bluffed her into submitting to arrest.

It is wholly unrealistic to say that if she had been better informed
about the law she could or should have fought back. Nobody in their
right mind fights a police officer.

But if there had been no regulations, and if he had said to her "I'm
arresting you for wearing inappropriate shoes" or some such, then she
might have screamed and sought help from a neighbouring householder or
passer-by.

[Martin Brown]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by The Todal
I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

The Covid regulations seemed a bit excessive to me at the time
particularly regarding those who were under 45 and healthy.

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
Whatever the flaws in the Covid regulations, one thing and one thing
only was *directly* responsible for Sarah Everard's murder - the evil
that was called Wayne Couzens.

Indeed.
The PP seems to have been using "directly" in an unfamiliar sense.

I think the regulations were directly responsible for Sarah Everard's
murder.

That is a matter of opinion. They were indirectly responsible because
they meant that the streets were largely empty and she was out on her own.

Post by The Todal
In the absence of those regulations, or if the regulations had been more
competently designed and publicised, I am sure the murderer would not
have bluffed her into submitting to arrest.

That much is probably true. Also he would not have been able to do it if
there had been plenty of witnesses on the street.

Post by The Todal
It is wholly unrealistic to say that if she had been better informed
about the law she could or should have fought back. Nobody in their
right mind fights a police officer.

That was what the NY police commissioner suggested she should do -
sanity eventually prevailed and it cost him his job but only after an
overwhelming vote of no confidence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-58915325

It is exactly what you *would* have to do though if you really believed
it was a disguised kidnap attempt and a fake policeman (or as in this
case a bent copper).

Post by The Todal
But if there had been no regulations, and if he had said to her "I'm
arresting you for wearing inappropriate shoes" or some such, then she
might have screamed and sought help from a neighbouring householder or
passer-by.

However, the circumstances were that it was dark, there were no passers
by or witnesses to the arrest. What I find more worrying is that he
seemed to have multiple red flags against him and was still a licensed
firearms officer. The Met still has serious questions to answer.

[JNugent]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by The Todal
I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

The Covid regulations seemed a bit excessive to me at the time
particularly regarding those who were under 45 and healthy.

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
Whatever the flaws in the Covid regulations, one thing and one thing
only was *directly* responsible for Sarah Everard's murder - the evil
that was called Wayne Couzens.

Indeed.
The PP seems to have been using "directly" in an unfamiliar sense.

I think the regulations were directly responsible for Sarah Everard's
murder.

That is a matter of opinion. They were indirectly responsible because
they meant that the streets were largely empty and she was out on her own.

Post by The Todal
In the absence of those regulations, or if the regulations had been
more competently designed and publicised, I am sure the murderer would
not have bluffed her into submitting to arrest.

That much is probably true. Also he would not have been able to do it if
there had been plenty of witnesses on the street.

Post by The Todal
It is wholly unrealistic to say that if she had been better informed
about the law she could or should have fought back. Nobody in their
right mind fights a police officer.

That was what the NY police commissioner suggested she should do -
sanity eventually prevailed and it cost him his job but only after an
overwhelming vote of no confidence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-58915325
It is exactly what you *would* have to do though if you really believed
it was a disguised kidnap attempt and a fake policeman (or as in this
case a bent copper).

Post by The Todal
But if there had been no regulations, and if he had said to her "I'm
arresting you for wearing inappropriate shoes" or some such, then she
might have screamed and sought help from a neighbouring householder or
passer-by.

However, the circumstances were that it was dark, there were no passers
by or witnesses to the arrest. What I find more worrying is that he
seemed to have multiple red flags against him and was still a licensed
firearms officer. The Met still has serious questions to answer.

Was there any cause for concern about the way in which he carried out
his firearm duties?

[GB]

Post by The Todal
I think the regulations were directly responsible for Sarah Everard's
murder.
In the absence of those regulations, or if the regulations had been more
competently designed and publicised, I am sure the murderer would not
have bluffed her into submitting to arrest.

Couzens worked out this particular modus operandi based on the Covid
regs, but without the regs he'd have worked out some other modus operandi.

Post by The Todal
It is wholly unrealistic to say that if she had been better informed
about the law she could or should have fought back. Nobody in their
right mind fights a police officer.
But if there had been no regulations, and if he had said to her "I'm
arresting you for wearing inappropriate shoes" or some such, then she
might have screamed and sought help from a neighbouring householder or
passer-by.

He could have chosen a woman who looked a bit drunk, and arrested her
for being drunk and disorderly.

[The Todal]

Post by GB

Post by The Todal
I think the regulations were directly responsible for Sarah Everard's
murder.
In the absence of those regulations, or if the regulations had been
more competently designed and publicised, I am sure the murderer would
not have bluffed her into submitting to arrest.

Couzens worked out this particular modus operandi based on the Covid
regs, but without the regs he'd have worked out some other modus operandi.

Post by The Todal
It is wholly unrealistic to say that if she had been better informed
about the law she could or should have fought back. Nobody in their
right mind fights a police officer.
But if there had been no regulations, and if he had said to her "I'm
arresting you for wearing inappropriate shoes" or some such, then she
might have screamed and sought help from a neighbouring householder or
passer-by.

He could have chosen a woman who looked a bit drunk, and arrested her
for being drunk and disorderly.

I don't think he would have picked on Sarah Everard but I agree that he
probably would have picked on someone else. In fact, one is entitled to
ask how often police officers arrest drunken young women and then behave
improperly towards them - and whether this can ever be prevented. Anyone
put in a position of power will be tempted to abuse that power.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by GB

Post by The Todal
I think the regulations were directly responsible for Sarah Everard's
murder.
In the absence of those regulations, or if the regulations had been
more competently designed and publicised, I am sure the murderer
would not have bluffed her into submitting to arrest.

Couzens worked out this particular modus operandi based on the Covid
regs, but without the regs he'd have worked out some other modus operandi.

Post by The Todal
It is wholly unrealistic to say that if she had been better informed
about the law she could or should have fought back. Nobody in their
right mind fights a police officer.
But if there had been no regulations, and if he had said to her "I'm
arresting you for wearing inappropriate shoes" or some such, then she
might have screamed and sought help from a neighbouring householder
or passer-by.

He could have chosen a woman who looked a bit drunk, and arrested her
for being drunk and disorderly.

I don't think he would have picked on Sarah Everard but I agree that he
probably would have picked on someone else. In fact, one is entitled to
ask how often police officers arrest drunken young women and then behave
improperly towards them - and whether this can ever be prevented. Anyone
put in a position of power will be tempted to abuse that power.

And that is why there is a specific offence of misconduct in a public
office (max. penalty: life imprisonment).

[GB]

Post by The Todal
I don't think he would have picked on Sarah Everard but I agree that he
probably would have picked on someone else. In fact, one is entitled to
ask how often police officers arrest drunken young women and then behave
improperly towards them - and whether this can ever be prevented. Anyone
put in a position of power will be tempted to abuse that power.

I was driving home one evening, and there was a naked woman standing in
the road. So, I asked her if she wanted help, and I ended up driving her
to the local police station.

When we got there, I went in and asked for a blanket, explaining I had
picked up a naked woman standing in the road. They didn't bat an eyelid
and just handed me a blanket. All routine stuff, apparently.

(No, I don't think it's a false memory!)

[Jethro_uk]

Post by GB

[quoted text muted]

I was driving home one evening, and there was a naked woman standing in
the road. So, I asked her if she wanted help, and I ended up driving her
to the local police station.

There are very few men who would do that these days - myself included.

Admittedly it would be trivial to call the police.

[Adam Funk]

Post by GB

Post by The Todal
I don't think he would have picked on Sarah Everard but I agree that he
probably would have picked on someone else. In fact, one is entitled to
ask how often police officers arrest drunken young women and then behave
improperly towards them - and whether this can ever be prevented. Anyone
put in a position of power will be tempted to abuse that power.

I was driving home one evening, and there was a naked woman standing in
the road. So, I asked her if she wanted help, and I ended up driving her
to the local police station.
When we got there, I went in and asked for a blanket, explaining I had
picked up a naked woman standing in the road. They didn't bat an eyelid
and just handed me a blanket. All routine stuff, apparently.
(No, I don't think it's a false memory!)

I was expecting a punchine.

Do you live near a "dogging hotspot"?

[JNugent]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by GB

Post by The Todal
I don't think he would have picked on Sarah Everard but I agree that he
probably would have picked on someone else. In fact, one is entitled to
ask how often police officers arrest drunken young women and then behave
improperly towards them - and whether this can ever be prevented. Anyone
put in a position of power will be tempted to abuse that power.

I was driving home one evening, and there was a naked woman standing in
the road. So, I asked her if she wanted help, and I ended up driving her
to the local police station.
When we got there, I went in and asked for a blanket, explaining I had
picked up a naked woman standing in the road. They didn't bat an eyelid
and just handed me a blanket. All routine stuff, apparently.
(No, I don't think it's a false memory!)

I was expecting a punchine.
Do you live near a "dogging hotspot"?

Years ago, (certainly more than forty, maybe not quite fifty), a family
acquaintance was driving his licensed taxi in Liverpool. It was a
weekday, quite late at night, not many people about.

In a thoroughfare called Marmaduke Street, he too saw a naked woman out
and about and obviously in fear and distress. He wrapped a coat around
her and took her to the nearest police station (which wasn't very far away).

It turned out that a former spurned paramor of hers had come to her flat
and had heard her and his replacement doing things in bed. He crept in
and stabbed the new bloke in the neck. The lady concerned, fearfyl for
her life, fled out into the night.

She knew who the killer was and he was arrested. A trial followed and he
was (obviously) convicted of murder.

At that time, "dogging" hadn't been heard of, but a built-up area like
that would - as I understand it - not be a favoured spot for that pastime.

[JNugent]

Post by The Todal

Post by JNugent

Post by Martin Harran
[...]

Post by The Todal
I think Boris Johnson's idiot Covid regulations and the confusion among
the public (and the police, and lawyers) about whether you needed a
valid excuse to walk in a park or down the road, were directly
responsible for Sarah Everard's murder.

Whatever the flaws in the Covid regulations, one thing and one thing
only was *directly* responsible for Sarah Everard's murder - the evil
that was called Wayne Couzens.

Indeed.
The PP seems to have been using "directly" in an unfamiliar sense.

I think the regulations were directly responsible for Sarah Everard's
murder.
In the absence of those regulations, or if the regulations had been more
competently designed and publicised, I am sure the murderer would not
have bluffed her into submitting to arrest.

I am sure that the word "directly" is not appropriate in that
circumstance. At best (or actually, at worst), it would be indirect.

Post by The Todal
It is wholly unrealistic to say that if she had been better informed
about the law she could or should have fought back. Nobody in their
right mind fights a police officer.
But if there had been no regulations, and if he had said to her "I'm
arresting you for wearing inappropriate shoes" or some such, then she
might have screamed and sought help from a neighbouring householder or
passer-by.

He could have told her she matched the description of a drug dealer who
had absconded from a nearby scene of crime... or anything, really.

And that was Covid regs or no Covid regs.