In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Orum (DPP v. Orum), in which the defendant was charged with two offences: C.6, S.5 (1) (a) of Public Order Act 1986, and C.48, S.51 (1) Police Act 1964. The defendant was acquitted of both charges at the Magistrates Court as it was ruled that a police constable is not considered likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress due to the nature of their job. As a result of this, the defendant was automatically not charged with the second offence as the constable had no power to arrest the defendant because the assault had taken place outside the police constable’s execution of duty.
In relation to this verdict, the case was appealed to the High Court, in which the following questions arose:
1. can a police constable be subjected to S.5 (1) (a) of Public Order Act 1986;
2. with the evidence provided to the Magistrates, would any other justice would have arrived at the same decision;
3. where Magistrates correct in ruling that the constables had not been acting in the execution of their duty after concluding there was no offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986;
4. whether the constables’ suspicion of an
…show more content…
Furthermore, the Magistrates, due to insufficient evidence, were advised by their clerk that it was within their power to infer S.5 (1) (a) had taken place. The defence argued that section 5 of 1986 Act should be interpreted with the Public Order Act 1936 S.5 that was used in the case of Marsh v. Arscott. Defendant was charged under the Public Order Act 1936 S.5 which states any person using threatening, abusive or insulting words in a public place with the intention to cause a breach of peace or the breach is likely to be
Habitat for Humanity is a nonprofit organization dedicate to building homes for low-income individuals. This organization requires that potential homeowners assist in the building of their home or others to reduce the financing cost of homeownership. This paper focuses on the percentage of property tax revenue, two arguments in favor, and two arguments property tax breaks for Habitat of Humanity homeowner, and case resolution.
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
They must also give details if an officer believes that the person was of any way a potential suspect or person of interest to an indictable offence where the officer, on reasonable grounds believes that the person was at or near the alleged offence when it occurred (Crimes Act section 563). If police officers come across anything of an illegal nature during the use of their powers which is not what they originally, set out to find. The person maybe immediately placed under arrest. Under Crimes Act section 352, (a,b) which states that any constable or other person may arrest without a warrant if the person has violated a law whether the offence be indictable or summary in nature. The police officer then may take him and any property found on him before a authorized justice to be dealt with according to the law.
Entrapment gain prominence in the Commonwealth system in England by means of a case in the House of Lords. Said case is R v Sang. A case heard in 1980, Sang firmly expressed the position that entrapment did not provide a power to exclude evidence which may well articulate a dismissal of a trial. Sang’s position remained and applied through English and Australian uppermost courts. As aforementioned Ridgeway distinguished Sang and formed jurisprudence in the Australian legal system. England’s breakthrough case in respect to entrapment was House of Lords case R v Loosley, heard in 2001. A dismissal of the case (grant of stay in English terms) is granted if the conduct of the officers was improper, the question of improper conduct is decided on whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime. Varying factors are outlined by Lord Hoffman to decide for or against a dismissal on grounds of entrapment; these vitiating factors have yet to be applied in a future case, however was distinguished by R v Priest in an Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. It remains transparently evident that alike to Australia, England is ‘on the fence’ in regards to entrapment, though the Queensland state seems to be the front runner in regards to regulating entrapment accusations by means of the
The police are just one agency within the Criminal Justice System All of the agencies within the Criminal Justice System work together. Another agency in the Criminal Justice System is The Ministry of Justice, of whom are responsible for other parts of the justice system such as the courts, prisons and probation services. For example, the police are responsible for keeping the peace and for the investigation of crime, they also collect evidence and arrest suspected offenders. In case of an emergency, the public is able to call ‘999’ and ask for the police to be sent out. Once at the scene the police then makes a decision, if the case is minor, then the police decide whether to caution them, or take no further action. They can also issue a fixed penalty notice, or they can refer to the Crown Prosecution Service for a conditional caution. If it is a more serious case, they send the papers to the Crown Prosecution Service for them to decide on the prosecution. Once sent to the Crown Prosecution Service it is ...
As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority.
Hodgson, Jacqueline. "Adding Injury to Injustice: The Suspect at the Police Station." Journal of Law and Society Mar. 1994: 85-101. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.
Police officers are faced each day with a vast array of situations with which they must deal. No two situations they encounter are ever the same, even when examines a large number of situations over an extended period of time. The officers are usually in the position of having to make decisions on how to handle a specific matter alone, or with little additional advice and without immediate supervision. This is the heart of police discretion. As we shall find, the exercise of discretion by police has benefits and problems associated with such exercise. The unfettered use of discretion can lead to the denial of citizen rights. Strategies that control the use of discretion are, therefore, very important. The benefits and problems of police discretion and controlling strategies are the focus of this essay.
Discretion of a police officer is the subject I would like to tackle. In this paper I will discuss the issues I have with the discretion, the problems with these discretions I have, and how some officers may use discretion to their advantage. By the conclusion of the paper the reader will be educated on the subject of discretion and the issues facing it.
The ability of police to exercise discretion was originally designed to allow officers to maintain the peace by allowing certain types of crime to remain unpunished in certain circumstances. This essay will aim to explore the issue of police discretion that suggests that the application of discretion works against the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In drawing this conclusion, this essay will examine the relationship between policing ideals and the use of discretionary powers and the relationship between policing attitudes and the use of discretionary powers. A discussion regarding the use of police discretion towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can scarcely be mentioned without making reference to arguably the greatest failing by a police officer since indigenous Australians were formally recognised as citizens. Further to this, the case of Mulrunji Doomadgee (Cameron) will be examined from the point of view of officer discretionary powers. The penultimate point to be made will involve the Anglo Australian response to this case as well as the ongoing relationship between indigenous Australians and the institutions that govern them. As mentioned, the first point will involve policing ideals and their relationship to discretionary powers.
On a large scale, police officers have been accorded the legitimacy to exercise their own free will while making decisions about their line of work. Police discretion can be described as responsibility bestowed to a police officer mandating them to make an individual choice regarding the best course of action that can be taken when exercising their duties. To some extent, this has been viewed as being favourable when police officers are on duty, but in the event that this happens, then it is arguable whether this discretion can result in misdemeanours. This paper attempts to elaborate on the debate whether police discretion is good or bad and the image that it portrays on police officers in case this position is violated. In light of this,
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
The limits of authority are usually stated in penal codes, the codes of criminal procedures, agency rules and regulations, training manuals, and often in codes of ethics. Authority applies to the handling of standard cases because, contrary to popular belief, criminal practitioners encounter more similar situations than dissimilar situations”. Police Power on the hand is different, Souryal (2007) states,” Power is the means of controlling the behavior of others beyond the standards of authority. Its purpose is not to punish or to discriminate, but to protect one’s safety (or the safety of others) when necessary, or to reinforce authority in conventional cases. Power is a legitimate means of exercising responsibility when it relates to minor ethical violations”.
in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law
The Indian Police Act, 1861, as modified in 1912 has become outdated and obsolete. With the developing society, the act should be renewed or reviewed to meet the needs of the present day.