header-logo header-logo

10 February 2021 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7920 / Categories: Features , Public , Criminal
printer mail-detail

(Re)setting the PACE

38899
Neil Parpworth reports on the necessity test for an arrest
  • Reform to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  • Two recent decisions to add to the body of case law on PACE 1984.
  • Judges to reflect ‘long and hard’ when deciding whether an impugned arrest was lawful?

Although s 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) remains the key statutory provision in relation to police powers of arrest, it underwent considerable change as a consequence of reforms made by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Chief among these was the introduction of a necessity requirement. In other words, the power of arrest in respect of a crime which either has been, is being or is about to be committed (or where the arresting officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any of these stages has been reached), may only be exercised where the officer ‘has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned … it is necessary to arrest the person in question’ (s 24(4) of PACE 1984). ‘Belief’ represents a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll