Introduction
Criminal litigation refers to the process of trying criminal offenders in a court of law. Criminal litigators are involved in the prosecution of criminal cases, and there are two categories of litigators; prosecutors and defence attorneys. Criminal prosecutors are law practitioners who work for state or federal governments, while criminal defence attorneys work for private firms or as public defenders. The law allows that every criminal suspect has the right to representation, and taxes are used to pay solicitors to represent those who cannot afford a solicitor. This paper will analyze the signed, recorded statement of Sheila Smith, who was arrested on 20th March 2022. The analysis seeks to show that the suspect was arrested wrongful, and there was a breach of the law by the arresting officers and indicates wrongful conduct of duty solicitor.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
This code of conduct must be readily available at all police stations for officers, staff, detainees, and the general public to consult. They are not part of the code but provide guidance to police officers and others on its application and interpretation. The code’s annexes contain provisions. This code governs officers’ use of statutory powers to search people or vehicles without making an arrest. The main stop and search powers covered by this code are listed in Annex A of the PACE codes. However, the code is not exhaustive and is governed by guidelines of principle. It also covers the requirement for officers and staff to record non-statutory encounters. The framers of this act wanted to protect citizens against the actions of rogue police officers and also protect police officers from any disciplinary action.
The Case
The case involves Sheila Smith, who was arrested on March 20, 2022. Frankie, her brother, had asked her to pick up a parcel from Deborah Reed at 5 Grange Close in Cambridge. She arrived at Deborah Reed’s house and told her she was Frankie’s sister and had come to pick up some DVDs. Then, she came back and handed the suspect a cardboard box that was taped to conceal the contents inside. She was halfway down Belsize Road; after five minutes of walking, two men, who she later recognized as police officers, stopped her and searched for her. They later took her to her house, where they conducted further investigation. They then put her under arrest and provided a series of stolen credit cards and rolls of cannabis sativa, which were then tabled as evidence.
Unlawful Acts of the Detective
Detective Sergeant Paul Carter and Detective Constable Darren Clarke approached the complainant in their official car, and they were dressed in ordinary suits, which was a direct contravention of code A paragraph 3.8 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They identified her by name, and the complainant recognized that the two men were police officers since they were in a police car even though they were not uniformed. Additionally, she also recognized one of the police officers, Detective Sergeant Paul Carter, since she had dealings with her previously. Moreover, PACE Code A para 3.8 stipulates that the arresting officer, before searching a detained person, must show their warrant card to the person being searched and inform them that they are being searched, identify themselves as a police officer conducting a legal search, and what the investigation is all about.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 stipulates that a police constable may exercise any authority given by this section in any area to which the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied consent, at the time he plans to exercise power. In any other location, different from the house, to which people have ready access at the time he proposes to conduct the arrest.
However, the police never introduced themselves as police officers and were not in their police uniforms. Similarly, the act does not grant a constable the authority to search a person, vehicle, or anything in or on a car if he has no reasonable grounds to believe that the search he is conducting would locate stolen or forbidden materials. The police detectives, in their official capacity, are covered by the law to conduct stop and search when they have evidence that a crime is ongoing. Indeed, the officers learnt of the stolen credit cards after the search and had no particular reason that would allow them to uncover them from the suspect. Therefore it was unlawful to accost the suspect without prior evidence, and the officer’s conduct illustrated that they were fishing for evidence. This was due to biases on their side due to the fact that the complainants had past involvements with the law.
Powers of Stop/PACE Code
The police detectives stopped the complainant and informed her that they were conducting a search on her. They approached the complainant from her behind. She says she became aware that a car was trailing her. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), section 6(1), has given police detectives the power to stop and search a suspect. However, stop and search powers must be used fairly, responsibly, with respect for those searched, and without unlawful discrimination. In addition, the privileges given to the law enforcers should not give them authority to destroy property, injure the suspect or humiliate them. The drafters of the act intended it to promote equality of opportunity between people who share a ‘relevant protected characteristic’, and those who do not is a duty of police officers under the Equality Act 2010.
There are basic principles that go in tandem with the act on how the stop and search should be conducted. If these basic standards are not followed, the use of stop and search powers may be questioned. Incorrect usage of powers diminishes their effectiveness. Stop and search can be helpful in detecting and preventing crime when used honestly. Even if a person consents to a search willingly, the search must be conducted in conformity with the appropriate legal power and this code. The sole exception is when an officer searches people entering sports fields or other places with their agreement as a condition of access.
Constable Clarke contravened code A paragraph 3.2 when he took the complainant’s property from her hand, remembering she was not a violet suspect and ripped open the box spilling the contents of the box. The complainant was shamed, her property mishandled and destroyed, and the officer did all this, knowing well that they were just fishing for evidence from the suspect. It is wrong according to the law to use an authority in this way. Also, this act requires that the constables establish a reasonable ground to conduct a stop and search of a suspect. Consequently, the principle of the law dictates reasonable reasons for stop and search cannot be assessed by a suspect’s race, ethnicity, religion, appearance, or prior convictions. Reasonable suspicion should be based on current police intelligence and not the suspect’s past record.
Powers of Search/PACE Code
After conducting the search in an inhumane and illegal manner, the officers bundled the suspect into the car, informing her that she was under arrest. Further, she was informed that they were heading to her house to conduct a further search of what they did not specify to the suspect at the point of arrest. Assuming reasonable suspicion, the extent of a search must be determined by what is suspected to be carried and who is suspected to be carrying it. If a person is suspected of having an item in their pocket, the search must be restricted to that pocket unless there are other grounds for suspicion or the item can be moved. The officer did not get on her any evidence that would warrant an arrest, and instead of letting her free, they proceeded to her house to conduct more searches.
According to S32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984, an officer may enter and search any premises where the suspect was at the time of arrest or immediately before arrest for evidence relating to the offence. In the case of the suspect, it was her brother’s house, but the police chose to drive to her house instead. Consequently, the officer must have unquestionable intelligence and reasonable grounds to believe that a piece of particular evidence exists on the premises. Contrary to all this, the two officers never informed the suspect of what their search was all about and what they were looking for.
Powers of Seize/PACE Code
Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has given a constable lawful access to premises the power to seize anything they find on the premise if they have reasonable grounds to believe it has been obtained as a result of an offence or as evidence in relation to an offence, and that seizing it is necessary to prevent its concealment, loss, alteration, or destruction. This provision was to warrant those police officers could not get information on the premise and could not use anything to implicate the suspect. The suspect’s house was not legally searched. The materials that resulted from this search must not be presented as evidence in any court of law since the process of getting them was illegal and did not follow laid down procedures
Powers of Arrest/PACE Code
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 214 (1) allows a police officer to arrest a suspect without a warrant if the individual is about to commit an offence, they get someone in the act of committing an offence, or they have reasonable grounds that the suspect is about to commit an offence. If these three conditions are not met, then there should be no arrest made in the event a warrant of arrest is not issued by a magistrate or any court of law. Arresting Sheila Smith was illegal as it failed to follow these simple and straightforward guidelines. Therefore, the arrest was not valid as the PACE procedures were not followed. The law is supreme, and no one is above the law, even the two law enforcers are not above the law.
Suspects Right Under Custody/PACE Code
The suspect while in custody has basic rights that are assured by PACE Code C and E. Even the most seasoned interviewer or occasioned suspect can find police interviews to be intimidating. PACE Codes of Practice C and E govern the conduct of police towards suspect in custody. Evidence obtained in a police interview may be challenged if it was obtained in violation of PACE 1984 or the Codes of Practice. It was the right of the suspect to remain silent when she is not under counsel. The police tried to extract a confession from the suspect but she chose to remain silent. The police are regulated by laws, PACE Code C and E being one of them so it was wrong to threaten the suspect to speak while she was in custody.
The Right to Intimation
The right to intimation is the right to notify a relative or friend of the suspect’s arrest as provided for in the provision of S56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Even if there are sections of the law that allows the police to delay a detained person’s right to contact someone in certain circumstances, in this situation, the suspect had no severe offence that could prevent the officer from granting the suspect her right of intimation. A person arrested and detained in a police station or other premises has the right to have one friend or relative, or other person known to him or likely to be interested in his or her welfare, informed of his or her arrest and detention as soon as practicable; except as permitted by the section. After the illegal arrest, the suspect asked to be accorded one phone call to inform her loved ones of her arrest, but the arresting officer did not listen to her. Further, the officer went ahead to issue threats to the suspect while she was in custody, and since she understood her rights, she opted to remain silent.
The Right to Legal Representation
The right to legal advice is a fundamental right to anyone who is arrested and has asked to be provided with one or asks that she contacts her lawyer. This basic right is provided for in section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; which gives detainees the right to legal advice. In some cases, as with the right to intimation, the police can delay legal advice where there are exceptional circumstances; this is not unknown it is a rare occurrence and usually associated with terrorist cases. A person arrested and detained in a police station or another location has the right to consult a lawyer privately at any time. A person who makes such a request while in custody for an offence does not need to have it recorded in his custody record. Therefore, as permitted by this section, a person who makes such a request must be allowed to consult a lawyer as soon as possible. The suspect’s right to counsel was denied, and the arresting officer did not provide this advice to her during her arrest. No police officer should ever do or say anything to dissuade anyone entitled to legal advice under this code from seeking it, whether or not they have been arrested and detained. It is the duty of police officers to enforce the law without bias toward suspects or innocent people.
The Conduct of the Solicitor
The functions of a solicitor include advocating and defending their clients’ rights. The work of a solicitor requires that he or she must know PACE 1984 and the Codes of Practice. Also, they should strive to obtain funding for legal representation as well as examine the charge’s drafting. They must know substantive legal principles, and when it is necessary to collect more evidence, they should visit the crime scene. The search for evidence includes looking for any possible defence witnesses and engaging experts and expert witnesses. Assess and advise on the evidence. Other functions include preparing the defence statement, ensuring witness attendance during the trial, dispute evidence, advice, and promoting bail. Assist in the Magistrates, including preparing mitigation if the defendant pleads or is convicted, considering appeal grounds
The Solicitor Regulatory Authority is a signatory of the PACE, and some principles guide those who are in this field. They are the basic ethical standards that we expect all those that are registered officers of the court to follow; this includes solicitors, authorized firms and their managers and employees.
The majority of magistrates’ courts have a schedule for duty solicitors. However, they are not allowed to litigate a client’s case for a full trial or in any committal hearing. Otherwise, duty solicitors can act on clients charged with small to medium felonies that are not likely to go to full trial or end up in sentencing. In addition, the plan is free, and the solicitor is compensated on a flat fee basis. Mrs. Draper gave a bill to Sheila for appearing on her behalf at the police station; this was soliciting funds that the taxpayers would pay her on a service that the suspect was to receive free of any charge.
In the event of a conflict between these laid down principles, those protecting the public interests, including public confidence in a trustworthy solicitors’ profession, and a safe and effective market for regulated legal services, take precedence. The solicitor should inform their client if some of their duty to the court or other professional obligations outweighs their duty to them, as discussed. Likewise, according to the guidelines of all solicitors, the selected solicitor should give the client suspect a client care letter. The purpose of the client care letter is to assist the client in focusing on the specific conditions of the retainer. Attorneys should issue the letter to the clients on their first encounter, together with any terms of business. While such a letter is not required, clients may find it beneficial to have some information written down for future reference. Additionally, this written information may be used to rebut charges of insufficient information or poor professional service. The statement of Sheila Smith does not indicate if Mrs. Draper gave her any form of documentation that would have her help the client effectively.
In the case of Sheila Smith, her duty solicitor, Mrs. Draper, did not provide the necessary counsel and acted in the most unprofessional way. She was busy texting throughout the interrogation, and it was the suspect who kept interjecting the officer if she should answer the array of the questions asked instead of Mr. Draper. This unethical way could not ensure that justice was served for Mrs. Sheila Smith.
Conclusion
PACE are fundamental principles that guide the conduct of any stop and search by police officers. The use of stop and search powers may be questioned if not followed, and misuse of powers reduces their effectiveness. When appropriately used, stop and search can help detect and prevent crime. Any police search must follow the law, and this code. It is a breach of the law to conduct any stop, search, arrest and seize outside the constraints of these guidelines.
A police officer can make arrest without warrant if they believe the suspect is about to commit a crime, has been caught committing a crime, or has reasonable grounds to believe they are guilty. The right to intimation is provided for in S56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Except as permitted by this section, a person arrested and detained in a police station or other premises has the right to have one friend or relative informed of his arrest and detention as soon as possible.
Reference List
Sharpley Deborah, Criminal Litigation: Practice and Procedure 2018/2019.College of Law Publishing 2018.
Case References
Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001]
R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police Metropolitan Police [2012] EWHC 1977 (Admin)
R (Hicks and others) v Comissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2017] UKSC 9
Catt v Chief Police Officers and Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2015] UKSC 9
R (AB) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2016] EWHC 2714
Law Society v Salsbury [2015] EWHC 283