Legality of Officer Blatter's Actions in the Context of PACE

Introduction

The present case at hand concerning the search and detainment of Alex by Police officer P. C. Blatter is initially meant to be seen within the purview of Code A of Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE). Before delving into the intricacies of law and legal rules concerning the procedure of search and arrest of persons by a police officer on account of suspicions some major factors need to be observed that led to the incident and any opposition or restrain showed by Alex to the Police officer. As stated, Alex was a regular footballer and was heading home as usual one evening and the whole incident took place at none another place than the street where she lived. Therefore, there should not be any reasonable doubt or suspicion as to her presence at that place and at that time. Moreover, at the present scene, the police officer Blatter by behaviour seemed more suspicious and threat like owing to him sneakily following Alex in his car and Alex’s reaction was more of a precautionary measure than to be termed as something to befall suspicion on herself. The police officer had been sneakily following Alex on a cold and dark evening which in itself was self-alarm raising for a woman. Moreover, the prima facie conduct of officer Blatter was in itself not in consonance with that of an investigative or a patrolling officer. The car mentioned in the facts of the case was not a police vehicle nor officer Blatter was in his uniform.

Now, laying assertion on Code A of the PACE that provides power to the police for making stop and search of persons or property in the event of a suspicion the rules are supportive of basic human rights to dignity and are not arbitrary in nature. None of the rules of Code A of the PACE were satisfied in the sense that the Code specifically states that all searches should be carried out superficially and should be restricted to outer garments only, moreover, if the search requires removal of any outer garments (such as Alex’s tracksuit top) it should be done by a police officer of the same sex and out of public view. Herein clearly it was done on an open road in complete public view by a male police officer. Moreover, the present search lacked the procedure to be followed with regard to first providing information to the person upon whom the search is to be carried out as to the reason and purpose of the search along with the search warrant or the officer himself disclosing his identity and intimating to the person being searched that he/she needs to be searched. Alex was given no information of any nature and the only reason she was searched was because she acted in an alleged suspicious manner in the event of a car following her on a road in the later hours of the day. Furthermore, section 1 of PACE Act provides power to a constable to make search and seizure of a property or a person if he ‘has reasonable grounds for suspecting’ that they will ‘find stolen or prohibited articles.’ The remark made by officer Blatter upon search of the holdall and seeing the new football kit “Got you! These are either stolen or fake” clearly suggests that the officer had no information of any such goods either stolen or fake goods doing rounds in a certain place. Upon finding certain objects he came up to the conclusion that the objects in possession of Alex are either stolen or fake. Also, the act of grabbing Alex by the hood and pulling her out of the door of her home onto the pavement was contradictory to the provisions of the PACE Code. The first instance of any verbal contact between officer Blatter and Alex was only after Blatter caught hold of the hood and pulled Alex back. As per the Code officer Blatter was supposed to warn or call out from a distance first and then proceed ahead with any further actions.

Also, the arrest carried out was clearly violative of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As per the Article there was no lawful arrest. Upon arrest the charge that was made out was that of under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 whereas the search and seizure was done on the apprehension of the goods recovered during search to be either stolen or prohibited articles. Moreover, as stated earlier in the facts of the case with regard to absence of any information with regard to any misdeeds at the location of the incidence, warrant of arrest or search and seizure on a private property, or in a hot pursuit nor police officer being in the uniform or even patrolling in a police vehicle amounts to acting out of jurisdiction hence any opposition by any citizen concerned doesn’t fall within the purview of Section 89 of the Police Act 1996. Such police officer cannot be held to being acting statutorily or on duty and any opposition is a protection of one’s own liberty and dignity.

On behalf of Alex, in my view the present case and the instance resolves around several provisions of the Police Act, 1996, European Convention on Human Rights, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 among several others. The power given in the hands of the police is meant to enforce law and order and early detection and obstruction of crime from taking place in the event of a conspiracy or preparedness of crime. But, as has been held in several cases that the enforcement of police powers should be done in consonance with public rights and should not disturb public peace, establishing threat and hatred for the law.

Continue your exploration of Legal Writing, Ethical Practice, and ADR in Contemporary Legal Landscapes with our related content.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Internet sources

1. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Cooperation with the International Bar Association, Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers (Professional Training Series No.9).

2. The Guardian, Police accused of abusing easier stop and search, 14 April 2019, available at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/14/stop-and-search-metropolitan-police-sajid-javid , last accessed May 4th, 2021.

Statute

Code A, Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

Cases

R v Iqbal [2011] EWCA Crim 273.

R (Fullard) v. Working Magistrates’ Court (2005) EWHC 2922 (Admin).