| Short Title: | Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 |
| Type: | Act |
| Parliament: | Parliament of the United Kingdom |
| Long Title: | An Act to make further provision in relation to the powers and duties of the police, persons in police detention, criminal evidence, police discipline and complaints against the police; to provide for arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing and for a rank of deputy chief constable; to amend the law relating to the Police Federations and Police Forces and Police Cadets in Scotland; and for connected purposes. |
| Statute Book Chapter: | 1984 c. 60 |
| Commencement: | in force |
| Related Legislation: | Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011 |
| Status: | Amended |
| Original Text: | http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1984/pdf/ukpga_19840060_en.pdf |
| Use New Uk-Leg: | yes |
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative framework for the powers of police officers in England and Wales to combat crime, and provided codes of practice for the exercise of those powers. Part VI[1] of PACE required the Home Secretary to issue Codes of Practice governing police powers. The aim of PACE is to establish a balance between the powers of the police in England and Wales and the rights and freedoms of the public.[2] Equivalent provision is made for Northern Ireland by the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1341). The equivalent in Scots Law is the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
PACE also sets out responsibilities and powers that can be utilized non-sworn members of the Police i.e. PCSOs, by members of the public or other government agencies e.g. FSA offiers, the armed forces, HMRC officers, et al.[3] [4]
PACE has been modified by the Policing and Crime Act 2017,[5] [6] [7] "which mean[s] that there is now a presumption that suspects who are released without charge from police detention will not be released on bail," a formality which was written in PACE 1984 Section 30A.[8]
PACE established the role of the appropriate adult (AA) in England and Wales. It describes the AA role as "to safeguard the rights, entitlements and welfare of juveniles and vulnerable persons to whom the provisions of this and any other Code of Practice apply”.[9]
The 1981 Brixton riots and the subsequent Scarman report were key factors in the passage of the Act, which was brought in following recommendations set out by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure.[10]
Prior to the introduction of PACE, police relied on stop and search powers that were 'piecemeal'. Such powers included those within the Vagrancy Act 1824, which developed 'sus' laws. These powers allowed police to stop a person found 'loitering' in a public place, if they suspected they had an intention to commit an offence, rather than a belief that they had committed an offence.[11]
The Scarman report found that black people were having 'stop and search' powers disproportionately used against them. A notable example of this was at the 1976 Notting Hill Carnival, where there was a perceived threat of 'black' crime, resulting in the police justifying using 'sus' laws inappropriately, including 'flooding' resources into the area. This resulted in violence.
Furthermore, high-profile miscarriages of justice, including three innocent youths being imprisoned for allegedly murdering a mixed-raced male prostitute named Maxwell Confait, as well the Birmingham Six showed there was a requirement for police accountability.
In 1979, the government appointed a Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, with Sir Cyril Phillips noting that in the 20th century, no review had been complete of police processes.
In 1981, the Royal Commission reported how stop and search powers had been used in an 'unsatisfactory' manner. The report proposed that across England and Wales, there should be powers and safeguards that were uniform, with the aim being to reduce the level of searches that were random and discriminatory.
The purpose of PACE was to unify police powers under one code of practice and to balance carefully the rights of the individual against the powers of the police.
Although PACE is a fairly wide-ranging piece of legislation, it mainly deals with police powers to search an individual or premises, including their powers to gain entry to those premises, the handling of exhibits seized from those searches, and the treatment of suspects once they are in custody, including being interviewed. Specific legislation as to more wide-ranging conduct of a criminal investigation is contained within the Criminal Procedures and Investigation Act 1996.
Criminal liability may arise if the specific terms of the Act itself are not conformed to, whereas failure to conform to the codes of practice while searching, arresting, detaining or interviewing a suspect may lead to evidence obtained during the process becoming inadmissible in court.
PACE also introduces various Codes of Practice, one of the most notable being an arrest without warrant can only be lawful if the necessity test contained within Code G of PACE is met.[12]
PACE was significantly modified by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This replaced nearly all existing powers of arrest, including the category of arrestable offences, with a new general power of arrest for all offences.[13]
PACE is applicable not only to police officers but to anyone with conduct of a criminal investigation including Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs[14] and to military investigations conducted by service police.[15] Any person with a duty of investigating criminal offences or charging offenders is also required to follow the provisions of the PACE codes of practice as far as practical and relevant.[16]
Despite its safeguards, PACE was extremely controversial on its introduction, and reviews have also been controversial,[17] as the Act was thought to give considerable extra powers to the police.
With the conjunction of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise into Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), HMRC essentially gained extra powers since Customs and Excise had a statutory right of entry into a private dwelling, that is to say they were allowed to break and enter without reason, but the Inland Revenue did not. PACE and its subsequent enactments limits that.
Various other government agencies including TV Licensing, the Royal Mail, BT Group (from its days of being spun off from General Post Office Telephones) and about seventeen others also have a statutory right of entry. One intent of PACE and its successors is to prevent the abuse of this right, or remove it entirely, to balance the privacy of the individual against the needs of the State.
Part I provides police powers to stop and search a person or vehicle.
Notably, Section 1 outlines that a constable has a power to search any person or vehicle for stolen or prohibited articles, including:
Part II of the Act relates to the police's powers in relation to entering and searching a location, as well as the seizure of items
This section provides that a constable can make an application for a warrant to a justice of the peace to enter and seize items from a premises, on the reasonable grounds they believe:
This provides that a constable can enter a premises under the following circumstances, if they are:
PACE did not effect a constable's power under Common Law, to enter a location to deal with or to prevent a breach of the peace.
This section provides that a constable may enter the premises of a person who has been arrested for an indictable offence, if they reasonably suspect that there is evidence that relates to the offence they have been arrested for or another indictable offence, connected with or similar to that offence.
A constable cannot use this power unless authorised by an officer at the rank of Inspector or above. This authorisation may be at the time or afterwards, where a constable must inform an authorising officer 'as soon as practicable'.
This section provides that police have a general power of seizure, if they are lawfully on a premises. They may seize anything they reasonably believe has been obtained as a result of an offence having been committed (e.g. stolen property or drugs) and that it is necessary to seize it to prevent its concealment, loss, damage, alteration or destruction (e.g. drugs being hidden and therefore evidence being lost). This does not include items of legal privilege, even if an officer believes that seizure would guarantee its safety.
This section provides that police may retain an item seized under section 19 as long as they require, so long as it is necessary in 'all the circumstances', such as for evidence at court, for further investigation, e.g. forensic examination or to ascertain the lawful owner of the item (if there are reasonable grounds to believe the item was obtained as the result of an offence).
This section does not allow for any items seized for a person that is not evidential to be retained when they are no longer in custody.
This section provides that a constable may arrest a person, without requiring a warrant if:
The section provides that a constable must have reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to arrest a person in order to:
This section provides that a person who is not a constable (such as a member of the public), can arrest a person, in certain circumstances. This relates to citizen's arrests (however, the term later became inapplicable, following the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005, which 'abolished the statutory concept of the "arrestable offence"').[18]
It allows a member of the public to arrest a person in the act of committing an indictable offence or that they reasonably suspect is committing an indictable offence, as well as a person guilty of an offence or who the member of the public reasonably suspects to be guilty of committing the offence.
This section provides that when a person is arrested, as soon as it is 'reasonably practicable', they should be provided with information regarding their arrest. This includes:
This section provides information about what should happen when a person attends a voluntary interview. Voluntary interviews are conducted similar to a person who has been arrested, albeit, they are arranged at a date, time and place after an offence has occurred, where arrest is either not possible (due to necessity criteria not being made out), or on the officer's decision.
Despite being called a 'voluntary' interview, a person could be subject to arrest if they fail to attend the interview, as the purpose of such an interview is to assist police with their investigation.
The section explains that a person must be told that they are able to leave the interview at any time (unless they are arrested) and that if a police officer decides to arrest them, the person must be informed that they are under arrest.
This section provides that whilst a person has been arrested and is at a police station regarding that offence and another offence is discovered that he would be arrested for, a constable shall arrest him for that other offence.
For example, it may be that a person is initially arrested on suspicion of theft from a shop, where CCTV later emerges whilst they're in custody of them stealing from another shop before their arrest. Subsequently, they would be arrested for that previous shoplifting.
This section provides that a constable, having established reasonable grounds, may search an arrested person, in any place other than a police station (this is covered by s54 PACE 1984).
The search can only be conducted if the constable reasonably believes that the arrested person may present a danger to themselves or others, allowing a constable to search them for items that may assist them from escaping from 'lawful custody' or that may be evidence relating to an offence.
If a person has been arrested for an indictable offence, then the officer may enter and search any premises they were in immediately before they were arrested, to search for evidence in relation to the offence they have been arrested for.
This section provides that a custody officer at a police station is responsible for ascertaining all the items an arrested person has on them, with these items being recorded.
The custody officer may seize and retain any of the items. Clothes and other personal items may only be seized if the custody officer believes the person they are seized from may use the clothing or items to:
The custody officer may also seize an item if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the item may be evidence that relates to an offence.
An arrested person must be told the reason for items being seized, unless they are violent or likely to become violent or are incapable of understanding information explained to them.
The Home Office and the Cabinet Office announced a joint review of PACE and its codes of practice in May 2002, and on 31 July 2004, new PACE Codes of Practice came into effect. Following a further review in 2010, PACE Codes A, B and D were re-issued to take effect on 7 March 2011.
On 1 January 2006 an additional code came into force:
On 24 July 2006 a further code came into force:
In the case of Osman v. Southwark Crown Court (1999),[21] the search of Osman was held to be unlawful because the officers searching him did not give their names and station, contrary to PACE's requirements.[22]
In O'Loughlin v. Chief Constable of Essex (1997), the courts held that the entry of a premises under section 17 PACE to arrest O'Loughlin's wife for criminal damage was unlawful because under PACE, anyone present on the premises must be given the reason for entry.[23] [24]
In the case of Christopher James Miller v. Director of Public Prosecutions (2018)[25] Mr. Miller's conviction for drug driving was revoked because West Midlands Police had breached Code C of PACE by not providing an appropriate adult, despite him telling officers that he had Asperger's syndrome and being aware from his previous interactions that he had Asperger's.
IPCC Investigation 2012/011560 - A breach of Code C of PACE occurred in 2012 when a vulnerable 11-year-old girl Child H with a neurological disability similar to autism who was denied an appropriate adult at Crawley Police Station, after she was arrested in Horsham on 4 separate occasions for minor offences between February and March 2012. Sussex Police referred the complaint to IPCC and accepted the IPCC recommendations.[26]
However, not all cases have gone against the police; in R. v. Longman (1988), it was held that the police entry of a premises to execute a search warrant for drugs was lawful, although deception had been utilised to gain entry, and, upon entering, the police had not identified themselves or shown the warrant.[27]