A recent report in the Law Gazette informed readers that “Criminal
Law Solicitors Association committee member Robin Murray said he had been
shocked when a serving officer told him the police had ‘got wise’ to the fact
that they do not need a solicitor present if they interview suspects at home.”
On the ground in South London, this reporter isn’t particularly
shocked at that kind of carry-on and can personally verify several instances of
police interviews or attempts to interview suspects (and their family members) beyond
the confines of the police station. A criminal practitioner at a busy South
London firm told this reporter that they had professional experience of this
kind of conduct from investigating officers.
Richard Atkinson, chair of the Law Society’s criminal law
committee, accused police of circumventing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act1984 (PACE) by interviewing suspects at home without a solicitor present. (The
suspect’s right to consult a solicitor is also a universal human right,
protected in international law under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)
In terms of its social context, The Police and Criminal
Evidence Act was a sorely-needed response to widespread abuse of police powers
in a number of crucial areas. The nature of how evidence was gathered and confessions
were extracted was proving increasingly problematic and the security of
convictions was being seriously undermined as a result.
Then there were the so-called ‘Sus laws’ (from the 1824
Vagrancy Act) which were used almost exclusively to target young men from
Britain’s black communities (although to be fair, an Irish man in London in the
1970s could just as easily expect to be on the business end of an SPG truncheon
as his West Indian brother during a stop and search).
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act therefore marked a
major landmark in criminal justice reform. Under its umbrella was a detailed architecture
comprehensively codifying police conduct. In short, PACE was legislation designed
to bring ‘Life on Mars’ style policing to an end.
While Atkinson was forced to admit the police were not
acting unlawfully, he did say they were “exploiting a loophole in PACE to
circumvent people’s rights to independent legal advice.” It was form of words
that stopped short of calling the police dishonest but it’s a bit like tax
avoidance and tax evasion; you might not be breaking the law but it’s clear you’re
contemptuous of the legislator’s intent.
“Section 58 of PACE,” he said, “specifically provides that a
person ‘held in custody in a police station’ is entitled to consult a
solicitor, but it does not mention suspects interviewed elsewhere.”
Atkinson goes on to remind us that “legal aid regulations
provide for free independent legal advice for anyone interviewed by a police
officer at any location.” These regulations, taken in conjunction with the PACE
codes, provide evidence (if any were needed) that the intent of the law in this
area is that suspects should never be interviewed anywhere without first being
offered the benefit of legal consultation.
Now whether or not this practice is ‘lawful’ (on a strict
formalist reading) is frankly moot. Even if no wrongful convictions or
frivolous prosecutions were to result from this cynical attempt to erode the
human rights of a suspect, the fact is, it damages the reputation of the police
at a time when they really could do with some good news. (But if, like the
Metropolitan Police, you no longer have an ex-Murdoch bagman on the PR pay roll, you’re
probably reconciled to the fact that there are going to be a lot ‘bad news days’
for the foreseeable future.)
But this too shall pass and it pays to be philosophical;
after all today’s bad press is the yesterday’s news of tomorrow....
It was further reported by the Law Gazette that Home Office
officials had “agreed to propose an amendment to the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act, imposing a duty on police to make it clear to any suspect
volunteering to speak to the police at any location, not just at a police
station, that they are entitled to free legal advice.”
That still leaves a question that the Met here in London (and
numerous other forces around the UK) haven’t been able to answer for decades now
and that is how to earn the trust and respect of the communities they work for.
As matters stand, the police in many parts of this country, particularly
in the disadvantaged urban areas, are viewed at best, with pathological
suspicion. At worst, they are openly despised. So while this question continues
to vex constabularies up and down the country, the reasonable man should be
asking himself precisely what (if anything) gives him cause to trust
the police.
Remember folks, it’s a social contract and that means it’s
voidable for non-performance or breach...
Comments
Post a Comment