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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll