Section 2
The issue here is whether or not the criminal procedure has been fairly applied to Dave’s situation.
According to section 41 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 , a person detained without charge cannot be held for more than 24hrs except for indictable offences like murder. If a police officer wants to question the suspect he must give the caution set out in s 10.1 code C of PACE. The trial remedies for police malpractice involve exclusion of the evidence under s.76(2) of PACE which states “that if the evidence was obtained under oppression or in the consequence of anything done in the circumstances, to make unreliable any confession made… will be rejected unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained as forsaid”. An abuse of …show more content…
In this case, Dave’s confession will most likely be rejected at trial because of the police oppression under s. 76(2)(a) PACE. The use of violence by police officers is completely unacceptable. The interrogation is reasonable because it follows the process that a police investigation entails: arrest and then an interview. However, the officers conduct afterwards of locking Dave in a cell, blasting heavy metal music with red lights can be construed as oppression under s 76(2) PACE. Furthermore, section 12 of the Code C says “in any period of 24 hours a detainee must be allowed…at least 8 hours for rest, free from questioning…in connection with the investigation concerned”. However, as Dave was unable to sleep due to the police officer’s action, s12 of Code C was infracted. This means the confession was obtained by deceit like in the case of R v Mason. Dave’s confession may nevertheless be admitted into evidence in order to bring him to justice for Tom’s murder. But if the confession evidence were to be admitted, Dave would have a strong appeal because of the breach of both s12 of Code C and s76(20(a) and (b)
The issue here is whether or not the criminal procedure has been fairly applied to Dave’s situation.
According to section 41 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 , a person detained without charge cannot be held for more than 24hrs except for indictable offences like murder. If a police officer wants to question the suspect he must give the caution set out in s 10.1 code C of PACE. The trial remedies for police malpractice involve exclusion of the evidence under s.76(2) of PACE which states “that if the evidence was obtained under oppression or in the consequence of anything done in the circumstances, to make unreliable any confession made… will be rejected unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained as forsaid”. An abuse of …show more content…
In this case, Dave’s confession will most likely be rejected at trial because of the police oppression under s. 76(2)(a) PACE. The use of violence by police officers is completely unacceptable. The interrogation is reasonable because it follows the process that a police investigation entails: arrest and then an interview. However, the officers conduct afterwards of locking Dave in a cell, blasting heavy metal music with red lights can be construed as oppression under s 76(2) PACE. Furthermore, section 12 of the Code C says “in any period of 24 hours a detainee must be allowed…at least 8 hours for rest, free from questioning…in connection with the investigation concerned”. However, as Dave was unable to sleep due to the police officer’s action, s12 of Code C was infracted. This means the confession was obtained by deceit like in the case of R v Mason. Dave’s confession may nevertheless be admitted into evidence in order to bring him to justice for Tom’s murder. But if the confession evidence were to be admitted, Dave would have a strong appeal because of the breach of both s12 of Code C and s76(20(a) and (b)