If the person is not charged it is so they can further the investigation, if they are charged it is so they can remain at liberty until the court date. The decision whether bail should be granted is made by the Custody Officer, under section 38 of PACE. They can refuse bail if the name and address can not be discovered or is not genuine. The magistrates also have the power to grant bail if the police have charged the suspect and have refused to grant bail. The suspect must be brought before the Magistrates court at the first available opportunity.
Stanford v Kentucky was a United States Supreme court case that dealt with the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least sixteen years old at the time the crime was committed. Stanford was 17 years old at the time he committed murder in Kentucky. On January 17, 1981, Stanford and an accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized twenty year old Barpel Poore during and after their robbery at the gas station Poore worked at. Hearings were held to decide on whether Stanford’s case should be held in Juvenile court or adult. The juvenile court did make the decision to transfer his case, therefore; Stanford would be trialed as an adult under a state statute permitting such action as to offenders who are either charged with a class A felony, capital crime or anyone over the age of sixteen and charged with a felony.
The police officer arresting a person must tell that person what the charges against him are, of his right to remain silent and his right to an advocate. If the police officer does not do this, then the arrested person has the right or freedom to be released since his rights have been infringed. Furthermore, the arrested person has the right from double jeopardy which is the right not to have multiple trials conducted against him for
If a police officer wishes to get a warrant, they must go to a magistrate and get the warrant signed. But this takes time to get. The warrant must state the crime(s) a person is being arrested for and must clearly identify the accused. They are usually for;- No power to arrest / No need to as already interviewed and an investigation is over Failed to appear in court or police station – breach of injunction / court order The benefit is that the police have to have certain information before the warrant is given which could safeguard people. The power of arrest without a warrant is found in Section 24 PACE 1984.
Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: The rationale behind this exception is that a person who has been arrested may destroy evidence or use some type of concealed weapon against the arresting officer. The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this rule in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Court held it was reasonable for law enforcement to search an arrestee for evidence or weapons. In order for a search incident to arrest to be lawful, the arrest itself must be lawful. This means if a person is arrested without a warrant or without probable cause and incriminating evidence is discovered after the arrest, that evidence cannot be used against the arrestee.
P1, P2 and M1 An arrest is the removal of a person’s liberty for a temporary period. They are carried out to: have a person answer a charge, prevent a breach of peace, have DNA sampled, return a person to prison or have a person appear in court. If a Police carries out the arrest, they have to give your miranda rights stating your rights, who you are and what your being arrested for. “You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney.
The accused are innocent until proven guilty and cannot be found guilty unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did in fact commit the crime or crimes that he or she is being accused of. The accused have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford it one will be provided for them, they have the right to a trial by jury and the right to confront witnesses against them, and the right to bail bond unless they are charged with murder or the court determines them a flight risk. The accused also have the right against self-incrimination meaning that a person cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. Rule seven of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the accused must have a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the facts constituting the offense they are being charged with. The accused have the right to counsel which means that under the sixth amendment the accused has the right to representation by an attorney.
A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the commission of a criminal offence; AND Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary. • Both elements must be satisfied, and • It can never be necessary to arrest a person unless there are reasonable Grounds to suspect them of committing an offence. 4 State one example of when a police officer may arrest without a warrant Anyone who is about to commit an offence 5 Explain what is meant by ‘necessity criteria’. The power of arrest is only exercisable if the constable has reasonable Grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person. The statutory Criteria for what may constitute necessity are set out in paragraph 2.9 and It remains an operational decision at the discretion of the constable to Decide: • Which one or more of the necessity criteria (if any) applies to the Individual; and • If any of the criteria do apply, whether to arrest, grant street bail after Arrest, report for summons or for charging by post, issue a penalty notice Or take any other action that is open to the officer.
“I forgot to load the pistol.” “Attending in a battle without any weapons is just like a hunter who does not know how to hunt,” Rainsford said. “I’m afraid you’re wrong my friend, with out a pistol is like without the ability to see, because you see. A hunter does not haunt with only one weapon,” the General told Rainsford as he draws for his hunting
The defendant appealed the manslaughter conviction on the grounds that he could not be liable for the victim’s death as he did not physically kill her. It could be argued that the defendant was right as the victim had been killed by police bullets and not his own. The police officers involved were also negligent as they were accused of taking out the light in the hallway which left them unable to see that the victim was in front of the defendant. The police were found to be negligent and were ordered to pay civil compensation to the victim’s family. However, his appeal was rejected as the defendant’s unlawful and dangerous act directed against the