Introduction
Samuel Solomon, a young man asking for legal advice, was taken into custody after being detained by the authorities following his arrest. The events of the evening left him confused and in considerable discomfort due to his injured ankle. However, the police failed to recognize that he required medical attention because of his injury, which is against the law in the UK.
In addition, the duty lawyer assigned to him, Ms. Drake, failed to provide legal advice and instead made fun of him since he was dressed as Superman after a fancy dress party. The suspect’s mistreatment by the police and the lawyer demonstrates a violation of the law and a breach of professional ethics. Therefore, Samuel has the legal right to take action against the police and the duty lawyer for violating the applicable laws in the country.
Possible Breaches of Law by the Police
Failure to Inform the Suspect of Their Rights
The police might have violated the law by not notifying Samuel of his rights. According to UK laws, the police must explain their rights to the suspect when questioned. A suspect has the right to remain silent and not to incriminate themselves. They have the right to legal representation. This right must be clearly explained to individuals before law enforcement questions them.
From the statement, the policewoman repeatedly asked Samuel to admit to breaking the car window with a hammer without informing him of his right to remain silent. This indicates that she has violated his constitutional rights, which could potentially lead to the exclusion of any statements made by Samuel from the trial. Therefore, the police may have breached the law by failing to inform Samuel of his rights.
In the UK, failing to inform suspects of their legal rights is considered a violation of their rights and can result in criminal charges against police officers. This is because suspects have the right to know the charges against them, the right to keep silent, and the right to have legal counsel. Failure to inform a suspect of these rights can result in false confessions and convictions. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental principle of the legal system in the United Kingdom, and ensuring that suspects are aware of their rights is a crucial component of this principle. Thus, police officers can be sued for failing to inform a suspect of their rights, and the repercussions can be severe, including loss of employment, compensation payments, and damage to their professional reputation.
Unprofessionalism
The police mistreated Samuel, and their conduct was regarded as improper. According to the Police (Conduct) Regulations of 2012, police officers are subject to a code of conduct stipulating that they must treat the public respectfully and decently. The public expects the officers to conduct themselves professionally and respectfully.
However, their comments about Samuel’s superpowers might be perceived as offensive, harming his mental health and well-being. Furthermore, their apparent indifference to his wounds might be interpreted as a sign that they are not taking his complaint seriously, which could harm his health. As a result, any violation of this code of conduct by officers must be seriously considered and thoroughly investigated.
The behavior displayed by law enforcers in the statement is unacceptable and unprofessional. Police officers are expected to maintain professionalism and respect while on duty. They must treat suspects with courtesy and respect, regardless of the situation. Making jokes at a suspect’s expense is unprofessional and can be seen as abusing power.
The UK police code of conduct emphasizes that officers should demonstrate the highest integrity, respect, and fairness. Furthermore, they must ensure they use their authority responsibly and appropriately. The policewoman should have spoken more professionally and respectfully with the suspect. Instead, she resorted to making unprofessional and inappropriate jokes.
Inappropriate Handling of Evidence
The manner in which the police officers handled the hammer raises potential concerns about their conduct. UK law outlines strict guidelines regarding police powers, including the need for officers to exercise discretion and treat all individuals with respect and fairness. In this situation, the officers have failed to do this.
Although Samuel admitted the hammer was his and dropped it, the officers’ decision to pick it up and make jokes about it can be seen as an abuse of their power. This is an example of them using their authority inappropriately and disrespectfully. Furthermore, their joking about the hammer, which could have posed a potential threat, shows a disregard for the safety of others. Thus, there is a possibility that the police officers failed Samuel with respect and fairness.
The officers’ failure to properly investigate the scene and gather evidence raises serious questions about their compliance with UK law. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police officers are authorized to search and seize evidence in specific circumstances. They are responsible for protecting the integrity of evidence and ensuring that it remains unaltered.
By picking up the hammer, the officers violated this responsibility as they did not call investigators to analyze the crime scene before collecting evidence. This could compromise the investigation, as the evidence may be contaminated or rendered unusable. Furthermore, if the officers have breached their legal duty, they may be found liable for any resulting damages. Therefore, the law enforcers could be sued for mishandling the case against Samuel.
Disregard of the Suspect’s Medical Plea
The police officer’s disregard of the suspect’s pleas for medical aid clearly violates UK law. According to the Human Rights Act 1998, people in police custody can receive medical attention if needed. This right is enshrined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which states that a suspect in police custody can receive medical attention if they suffer from physical or mental illness. Furthermore, the UK Code of Practice for the Detention and Interview of Persons by Police Officers states that the police must consider the health needs of people in police custody. Therefore, law enforcers are supposed to provide them with appropriate medical attention when needed.
The suspect obviously needed medical care due to the pain in their ankle and the chill they were experiencing. The PACE Code of Practice states that police officers must act with fairness, courtesy, and respect, which the officer, in this case, did not do. In the statement, the police officer violated UK law by not taking the suspect for medical attention despite several requests.
The failure to value a suspect’s health might even result in the death of a suspect, as it did in the 1998 investigation of Christopher Alder. This violates UK law and goes against the values of justice and fairness upon which the UK legal system is built. The actions of the police can be seen as a form of police misconduct and a violation of the suspect’s rights.
Coercion
In the UK, it is illegal for a police officer to pressure a suspect into confessing to a crime. Law enforcers are not permitted to intimidate, threaten, or coerce a suspect into confessing to a crime. A police officer should not promise a suspect special treatment in exchange for admitting to a crime or special treatment in exchange for their release.
Samuel’s statements appear to be a form of police coercion. For instance, the officer suggested that the suspect must confess to smashing the car window to be freed. The law enforcer attempting to coerce the suspect into confessing to a crime they may or may not have committed is a clear violation of the law. Therefore, the officer’s actions violated the country’s laws, which forbid intimidation of suspects.
Police coercion can have adverse effects on suspects as well as the criminal justice system as a whole. It might result in erroneous convictions and false confessions in the near future. In the long term, it may result in a breakdown of trust between the community and the police because people might stop believing that the police are looking out for the interests of the general populace.
Respecting suspects while upholding the law is crucial for police officers. Put differently, they must not coerce a suspect into admitting guilt. This is against the law and can have dire repercussions. If a police officer is found to have coerced a suspect, they may be subject to discipline, including suspension or dismissal.
There are instances where coercion has landed law enforcers in prison. Derbyshire Police Constable Jasbir Dhanda was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison for having sex with a prostitute while on duty in exchange for not arresting her. The case involved Dhanda using his position of power to coerce the vulnerable woman into having sex with him, taking advantage of her precarious situation. In addition, he made false entries in his police notebook to cover up the illegal activity.
Dhanda’s actions were a gross violation of his duties as a police officer and a betrayal of the trust placed in him by the public. The conviction of Dhanda sends a clear message that police officers who engage in criminal behavior will be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, coercion is a crime against UK laws and a misconduct of the police code of ethics.
Denial of Phone Call
In the UK, suspects can contact family members or friends to inform them of their detention. The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights protect this right. As it enables a suspect to tell someone of their situation, the right to contact a family member or friend is a crucial component of the right to a fair trial.
Based on this, the officer infringed on the suspect’s right to a fair trial by rejecting their phone call. This constitutes a violation of the suspect’s rights since, in the absence of a family member, they may not be able to get any assistance in custody. Additionally, denying a phone call could be seen as intimidation or mental abuse, as the suspect is deprived of their right to contact a family member or lawyer. Therefore, the officer breached the UK’s Human Rights Act, violating the suspect’s rights.
There are instances where the police have been charged with misconduct when they did not allow the suspect to make a call. In 2020, a police officer in the UK was charged with denying a suspect their right to make a phone call. The incident happened when the suspect, arrested for a public order offense, was taken to the police station. He asked to make a phone call, but the police officer refused and took him to a cell instead.
The episode was reported, and the officer was charged with misconduct in public office. The suspect’s right to make a phone call is protected by the PACE 1984, which states that a suspect must be allowed to call a solicitor or another person of their choice. The court accepted that the officer’s actions were unlawful, and he was found guilty, fined, and given a suspended sentence.
Detaining the Suspect Without Reasonable Grounds
In the statement, it is unclear why the individual was arrested and detained, as there was no evidence suggesting they had broken the car window. This shows that Samuel’s detention violated their rights under UK law. The police should have investigated further to establish whether the suspect had committed the crime.This could have been done by gathering CCTV footage, asking neighbours, or obtaining evidence.
Furthermore, without reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual had broken the car window, their detention was unlawful and violated UK law. The suspect was not given a fair chance to prove their innocence and was not allowed to explain their actions. He should have been informed of their rights and allowed to contact a lawyer. This would have ensured their rights were protected and treated fairly and respectfully.
In the UK, detaining a suspect without rational grounds is considered unlawful and can result in civil and criminal consequences for the police officers involved. The principle of habeas corpus, which requires that a person cannot be detained without lawful authority, is enshrined in the law. For example, in one case, in 2011, a man named Julian Cole was detained by police officers who assumed he possessed drugs.
However, the officers did not have reasonable grounds for the arrest, and Cole afterward suffered a tragic spinal injury during the arrest. The officers involved were later found guilty of assault and sentenced to prison. Therefore, detaining a suspect without reasonable grounds is unlawful and can lead to serious repercussions for the suspect and the police officers involved.
The Behavior of the Duty Lawyer
Failure to Advise the Client on Legal Rights and Representation
Ms. Drake, the duty defense lawyer, acted in ignorance by not advising her client to remain silent and to exercise his right to legal representation. The primary responsibility of a defense lawyer is to advise their client of their legal rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal representation. Ms. Drake violated her moral duty as a defense lawyer by not advising Samuel of his rights as a suspect. In addition, if Samuel made any incriminating statements or took actions that could harm his case before receiving legal representation, it could significantly influence the outcome of his case.Therefore, it is integral for defense lawyers to offer adequate guidance to their clients on their legal rights and options to attain the best possible outcome for their case.
Unprofessional and Disrespectful Conduct Toward the Client
The duty lawyer’s conduct towards the suspect was inappropriate and unprofessional. She should have taken the situation more seriously, considering that her client was accused of a serious crime. Ms. Drake made jokes about her client’s costume, and she seemed to find the whole situation amusing.
Rather than showing respect and empathy towards her client, she made jokes about the costume. This behavior has no place in the practice of law, especially for a professional who is supposed to represent their client. It reveals a lack of comprehension of the gravity of the circumstance and a lack of respect for the person she was supposed to be assisting. Therefore, how Ms. Drake handled this situation was unprofessional, and her client deserved to be treated fairly.
Neglect of the Client’s Physical Condition and Legal Guidance
Ms. Drake’s disregard for her client’s physical condition is unacceptable. She should have accounted for her client’s twisted ankle and responded more appropriately. As a lawyer, she must provide competent legal counsel and protect her client’s rights. She should have asked her client for a more detailed account of the events and considered that he was ill.
Moreover, she should have provided much more appropriate guidance instead of making jokes about her client’s costume. Her lack of regard for her client is troubling, and she should have acted more professionally. Thus, she should have been guided on responding to police questions during the interview and on a stronger legal defense.
Breach of Professional Conduct
During the interview, the duty lawyer ignored her client’s case. Thisis a breach of professional conduct, as the attorney must represent her client’s interests and ensure her client’s rights are respected. Instead of paying attention to the interview, the attorney was more preoccupied with texting on her phone. This is unacceptable; the attorney should give the case her full attention. For example, she should have stopped the police officer from coercing her client to admit to a crime he did not commit.
The attorney should have been more professional and provided the best possible service to her client. This is a clear violation of professional ethics and a breach of the attorney-client relationship. Thus, Ms. Drake failed to fulfill her professional responsibilities by ignoring the case.
Involvement in Bribery
In the UK, it is illegal for a duty lawyer to solicit a bribe from a client. This violates the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) Code of Conduct, which states that solicitors may not request, accept, or offer cash to affect the outcome of a case. This includes providing legal fee discounts in exchange for cash payments.
Furthermore, according to the Bribery Act of 2010, offering or accepting a bribe is illegal. It is a crime to offer or accept money or a reward to influence someone to perform their duty. Solicitors can face criminal charges for attempting to solicit a bribe from their clients. Therefore, if a solicitor is found to violate either of these regulations, disciplinary action, such as expulsion or a fine, may be taken.
Conclusion
Samuel can lawfully sue the police and the duty lawyer for acting against the provided legislation in the country. The police did not inform Samuel of his right to an attorney, and the duty lawyer did not provide Samuel with adequate legal representation. The attorney’s inappropriate remarks further exacerbated the situation.
In addition, the police and the duty attorney neglected Samuel’s medical needs, specifically his twisted ankle. The police and the duty attorney violated several professional standards and laws, and must be held accountable for their actions. Therefore, the police and the lawyer failed to adhere to the existing laws and professional conduct when handling Samuel’s case.
Bibliography
BBC News, ‘Derbyshire Police Officer Used Prostitute for Drugs and Sex,’ 2012, in BBC News.
Ozin, Paul and Norton, Heather, PACE: A Practical Guide to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Oxford University Press 2019)
Roppolo, Michael, ‘U.K. Police Officers Fired over 2013 Arrest That Left Man Paralyzed,’ 2018, in CBS News.
Sheppard, Audley, ‘The Lawyer’s Duty to Arbitrate in Good Faith and with Civility’ (2021) 37(2) Arbitration International 535. Web.
Westmarland, Louise and Conway Steve, ‘Police Ethics and Integrity: Keeping the “Blue Code” of Silence’ (2020) 22(4) International Journal of Police Science & Management 378. Web.