Skip to main content

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…