Respecting the police could end in your arrest

Last Friday night I had been out for a drink with a couple of friends (ironically one of them a PC from British Transport Police).  After we left the pub on the Strand, I decided to walk up to Buckingham Palace and catch a cab home.  On the way, I stopped to look at the memorial to police officers killed on duty that can be found just past Admiralty Arch on the Mall.

Apparently, paying your respects to police officers who have been killed is highly suspicious activity. 

A couple of minutes later as I walked up the road toward the Palace, four police cars descended on me and the officers within demanded to know what I was up to as they'd had a report from a CCTV operator that I was acting suspiciously.  My ID was checked and I promise I've never been so relieved as when I heard the words "no trace" come across the radio followed by confirmation that I hadn't done anything to the memorial.

I mention this story partly as an amusing story but also as a reminder of what paranoid times we live in.

Comments

  1. Anonymous24 May 2011 at 16:19

    You've been living in another world for the last six years.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-371004/MPs-condemn-arrest-woman-spoke-out.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous25 May 2011 at 15:20

    Typical heavy-handed stuff - under what powers did they purport to act/ You should complain.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hideki25 May 2011 at 20:14

    I suspect being a solicitor if it were actually illegal he'd have had something to say about it, heh

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jimbob28 May 2011 at 15:19

    It's not illegal and nor does it require a power for the police to be able speak to someone Anonymous 2.

    As a constable myself in the counties I have to say that over-eager CCTV operators and their concept of 'suspicious' is one of the banes of my working life. You'd find very few of us who would shed a tear if live monitoring of CCTV was a victim of public sector cuts!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous30 May 2011 at 21:23

    So you got stopped and questioned? Then nothing happened and you went on your way?
    Wow some story,alert the Daily Mail who will run with this as headline news.
    Jaded.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hideki31 May 2011 at 01:27

    Do you not think you should be able to go about your lawful business without having to explain yourself to the law? I do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jimbob31 May 2011 at 15:24

    Hideki - how do you propose the police, acting on information received from a third party, satisfy themselves your business is indeed lawful without speaking to you directly? Would you find it less sinister if they covertly followed you around from the shadows while making their minds up?

    I'd also point out that there is no legal obligation on any citizen to answer the questions of a police constable in such a situation if you don't want to. And given the right to silence even when under arrest you can in fact go about your business, lawful or otherwise, without "having to explain yourself to the law".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Defence Brief1 June 2011 at 16:16

    Anon#3, you missed the point. I did spell it out but I assume reading isn't your strong point, I repeat: "I mention this story... as a reminder of what paranoid times we live in."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hideki6 June 2011 at 10:03

    Jimbob...

    "Would you find it less sinister if they covertly followed you around from the shadows while making their minds up?"

    Erm, isn't that exactly what they did, just with CCTV cameras and operators?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with ...
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe...
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an...
More gibberish >>