Name: Sian Brown

Word Count: 1467

Student Number:Q11651393
Unit title: Legal Systems and Methods
Unit code: Law654
Assignment title: AE3 exercising of police powers

In this case, I will be determining if the stop and search and the subsequent arrest by PC
Jones and Wing on Ali and Barbara was lawful. In order for a stop and search and an arrest
to be carried out lawfully, certain protocols and procedures must be followed in accordance
with particular acts. If it is determined that these procedures where not followed, then it
would indicate the act being unlawful therefore it may be possible for Ali and Barbara to
press charges on the officers.
It is stated that Ali and Barbara where sat on a bench in the town centre dressed in casual
attire, t-shirt jeans with Barbara wearing a baseball cap. A security guard at a nearby shop
has noticed two young people shoplifting from their store, it is not known the exact items that
have been stolen, but it is identified as likely being t-shirts. The security guard describes the
offenders as wearing hoodies and jeans. The security guard alerts the police to the crime
and suggests that the offenders are possibly Ali and Barbara, she points at them and tells
the officers they have been sat there a while, looking very nervous and suspicious.
The officers approach Ali and Barbara, they request to see ID and question why theyre in
town. Both Ali and Barbara respond differently, Ali says his name is Basra and says to the
police officers that it is obvious that they are shopping. Barbra however, declines to answer
their question on the grounds that they have no right to question them.
After these responses, PC Jones asks Ali to empty his pockets, Ali does so and shows PC
Jones a pack of tobacco, a lighter, some loose change and till receipts. PC Wing then asks
Barbra to empty her pockets, empty her bags and take of her baseball cap, but she declines
and asks why should I, I havent dont anything wrong?.
The issue here is determining whether PC Jones and PC Wing where exercising their power
to stop and search lawfully. Parts 1-3 of the PACE act1 highlights the three main stop and
search powers that are in force. These parts of the PACE act2 allows a police officer to
search any member of the public providing that they have reasonable ground to suspect it
was necessary after suspicious behaviour3. This part of the PACE act4 extends to give an
officer right to search a person, their vehicle and items found on the vehicle without
necessarily following it up with an arrest, again providing there is a valid cause of suspicion.
Police officers have the right to detain individuals to allow a stop and search to be conducted
sufficiently. They are also permitted to search in an attempt to recover stolen goods after
theft5. Part one subsection 7-96 details the basis which stop and search powers can be
enforced and what can be justified as reasonable suspicion, giving them the legal power to
1 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s 1-3
2 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
3 Gov uk, 'Police powers to stop and search: your rights' (Govuk/, 23 September
2016) <https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights> accessed
7 January 2017
4 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
5 Citizensadvice, 'Police Powers' (Citizensadviceorguk, 23 June
2016) <https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/police/policepowers/> accessed 7 January 2017
6 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 cl 1(7-9)

conduct a lawful stop and search. However, what is determined reasonable grounds will
differ dependant on the circumstances of each individual case7.
From what is stated in this case, it suggest that the police officers had no reasonable
grounds for a stop and search. The security guards description does not match that of Ali
and Barbara. It is said that the suspects were wearing hoodies and jeans, different to what
Ali and Barbara are wearing and the security guard gives no mention of a baseball cap being
worn. The security guard then tells the police officers that they have been sat there for a
while looking nervous, however there is no evidence that the police suspected or observed
any suspicious activity. Ali and Barbara where simply sat on a bench in the town centre, this
does not seem an abnormal thing to be doing therefore, no reasonable grounds as to why
this could be classed as suspicious contrary to section 24 of the PACE act8. In the case of
Regina V Rover Anthony Doody9, police were called to a home as three males where
displaying signs of suspicious behaviour. One of them men were caught hiding in the shed
which would be viewed as abnormal or suspicious behaviour. The police later searched this
males home and recovered several stolen items, it was because of stop and search powers
that this discovery was made10. If Ali and Barbara where caught hiding such as in the
aforementioned case, then it may have been reasonable grounds for suspicion. However,
they were sitting in public view on a bench in a shopping centre, not likely to be the
behaviour or act of someone that was concerned about getting caught for a crime.
Not only was the stop and search unlawful because of cause for suspicion, it was also
conducted in an incorrect manor. Even if the police officers had a good, justified cause for
suspicion, they are still required to adhere to the code of practice in accordance with the
pace act by giving relevant information to Ali and Barbra. In order to constitute conducting a
stop and search, information such as names, station, reasons for the search and reference
to the suspected crime should have been given by the officers to Ali and Barbra before the
officers attempted to search them11, the fact that they failed to comply with these simple
procedures, indicates that the stop and search was unlawful.
Therefore, Barbra was within her right to resist being searched and was entitled to refuse
emptying her pockets and allowing them to search her bags. Ali however, willingly showed
the officer what was in his pockets which was items that showed no relevance to the crime
7 Citizensadvice, 'Police Powers' (Citizensadviceorguk, 23 June
2016) <https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/police/policepowers/> accessed 7 January 2017
8 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s24
9 Regina V Secretary of state for the home department ex parte Doody and
others HL 25 Jun 1993
10 Swarb, 'REGINA V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT EX PARTE
DOODY AND OTHERS: HL 25 JUN 1993' (Swarbcouk, 30 June
2015)<http://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-exparte-doody-and-others-hl-25-jun-1993/> accessed 6 January 2017
11 Citizensadvice, 'Police Powers' (Citizensadviceorguk, 23 June
2016) <https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/police/policepowers/> accessed 7 January 2017

they were suspected of. Had the police officers had a valid reason for suspicion and followed
the aforementioned code of practice and Ali and Barbra had still refused, then the police
officers may be able to claim they were committing an offence in the way of wilful
obstruction.

Following the request to stop and search Ali and Barbara, PC Jones tells them they both
must accompany them to the station for a full search and to give information there. Barbara
then asks if theyre being arrested, to which PC Wing responds What do you think?
Shoplifting is illegal.
In order for an arrest to be lawful, certain protocol must be followed which is outlined in the
PACE act section 2412. This section discusses that an arrest without a warrant may only be
carried out if it is clear an individual is about to commit an offence, they are already in the
process of committing an offence or they have a solid presumption of the individuals intent. A
police officers power of arrest is subjective13, Section 24 subsection 4 of the PACE act14
states that the police must have enough information and evidence to believe the arrest is
necessary. A two stage test was established in Hayes V Chief Constable of Merseyside
Police15, this set out two stages which must be satisfied when performing an arrest. This is
that it must be believed that the arrest is necessary for one of the reasons in section 24
subsection 516, and that the belief the information known at the time was objectively
reasonable. This two stage test intends to eliminate unlawful arrests.
From the information given, it can be determined that arresting Ali and Barbra was unlawful
as the two stage established in Hayes V Chief Constable of Merseyside Police17 was not
satisfied. No reason stated in section 24 of the PACE act18 can be found to be satisfied in
this case. There was no clear indication they were about to commit an offence nor that they
were in the process of committing an offence and finally there is no apparent reason for the
police officers to hold a solid presumption of intent. Finally, there was not enough information
to believe the arrest was necessary. All the information the police had was that given by the
security guard, the security guard did not accuse Ali and Barbra of the offence, just simply
stated it could be them due to her perceptions of their behaviour. The description given by
the security guard also did not match that of Ali and Barbra who were wearing different
12Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s24
13 Papworth, 'Arrest, Reasonable Suspicion and the Court of
Appeal' (Criminallawandjusticecouk, 16th October
2009)<https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Arrest-ReasonableSuspicion-and-Court-Appeal> accessed 7 January 2017
14 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s24 ss4
15 Hayes V Merseyside Police CA 29 Jul 2011
16 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s24 ss5
17 Hayes V Merseyside Police CA 29 Jul 2011
18 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s24

clothing to the suspects. Ali, who emptied his pockets and no items that he showed the
police indicated he was in any way related to the shoplifting incident.

In conclusion, it was apparent that the police officers did not act lawfully when exercising
their powers of arrest and attempts to stop and search Ali and Barbra. The crucial
aforementioned errors the officers made in not having reasonable information or suspicion of
an offence being committed along with not following the code of practice that is required
indicates that Ali and Barbra where not required to agree to search, nor where they able to
have one forced upon them. It was also not a lawful response to arrest Ali and Barbra or
accuse them of shoplifting as there was no reasonable evidence to suggest this was
conclusive or even a possibility. Due to this, it may be possible for Ali and Barbra to bring
civil action against the police and claim damages for incorrectly carrying out their duty and
the unlawful arrest and search. 19.

19 Ch law, 'Civil Action Against The Police' (Ch-lawcouk, 07 May

2013) <http://www.ch-law.co.uk/services.php?type=civilactions> accessed 8 January
2017