Section 24 Of PACE: Murray V UK 1995
What is a lawful arrest?
Section 24 of PACE sets out the grounds and authority police officers are entitled to in order to make an arrest. These powers were amended in 2005 by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). As a result a new section was added to section 24 therefore enabling the police to arrest anyone who;
a. is about to commit a offence;
b. anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
c. anyone who he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit a offence;
d. anyone who he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.
This section gives police the authority to pretty much arrest anyone for anything provided they abide by the above statements. Also if an offence has …show more content…
Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest . Article 5.2 of the ECHR also corresponds with section 28 as it is said that everyone who is arrested must be informed the reason for arrest in a language they understand. Although these requirements have been set out many cases diminished the specified requirements. For example in the case Murray v UK 1995. In this case Murray was arrested and detained without an explanation as to why and despite her rights being breached (ECHR Article5) it was held by the court that no breach was made.
Another case which conflicts with the ideology of balance of powers is the case Brogan v UK1998. In the ECHR Article 5.3 it states that everyone who is arrested or detained must be brought before a judge or officer immediately and shall be entitled to a trial within reasonable time. In saying so four people were detained for 144hours. According to the Terrorism Act detention of seven days maximum is lawful however the judges held that a breach of rights was imposed as stated in Article
Section 24 of PACE sets out the grounds and authority police officers are entitled to in order to make an arrest. These powers were amended in 2005 by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). As a result a new section was added to section 24 therefore enabling the police to arrest anyone who;
a. is about to commit a offence;
b. anyone who is in the act of committing an offence;
c. anyone who he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit a offence;
d. anyone who he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence.
This section gives police the authority to pretty much arrest anyone for anything provided they abide by the above statements. Also if an offence has …show more content…
Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest . Article 5.2 of the ECHR also corresponds with section 28 as it is said that everyone who is arrested must be informed the reason for arrest in a language they understand. Although these requirements have been set out many cases diminished the specified requirements. For example in the case Murray v UK 1995. In this case Murray was arrested and detained without an explanation as to why and despite her rights being breached (ECHR Article5) it was held by the court that no breach was made.
Another case which conflicts with the ideology of balance of powers is the case Brogan v UK1998. In the ECHR Article 5.3 it states that everyone who is arrested or detained must be brought before a judge or officer immediately and shall be entitled to a trial within reasonable time. In saying so four people were detained for 144hours. According to the Terrorism Act detention of seven days maximum is lawful however the judges held that a breach of rights was imposed as stated in Article