WEST MIDLANDS POLICE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 1 A COPY

14 TH JULY EAST MIDLANDS WEST REGIONAL EVENT
25 PAGE | BIOLOGY 112 LAB OBJECTIVES MIDLANDS TECHNICAL
ADDRESS EAST MIDLANDS COUNCILS PHOENIX HOUSE NOTTINGHAM ROAD MELTON

BRASSMASTERS PO BOX 1137 SUTTON COLDFIELD WEST MIDLANDS
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT’S MISSION STATEMENT MIDLANDS TECHNICAL COLLEGE’S BUSINESS
CAYCE – “CRADLE OF THE MIDLANDS” (A COMPREHENSIVE

FOI

West Midlands Police Freedom of Information

A copy of WMP policy on using Section 59 powers under the Police reform act 2002.

West Midlands Police Vehicle Recovery Policy is published online at :

http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/0001_474_VEHICLE-RECOVERY-POLICY_01.pdf

Part of this legislation requires a "Constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing" Could WMP clarify what is meant by this in relation to giving a Section 59 warning under this legislation.

The definition of reasonable belief is produced below and taken from the Police National Legal Database:

The criteria for reasonable grounds to believe or suspect is the legal threshold for the exercise of almost all the coercive powers available under PACE and other relevant legislation and for the non-coercive powers also contained in the PACE Act 1984 such as delaying a detained person's right to consult with a solicitor. Senior police officers who may authorise the exercise of certain powers need to be satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the exercise of those powers is justified. In the absence of reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, the exercise of those powers is not permitted and any consequential interference with the freedom of an individual is unlawful.

Whether or not a constable has reasonable cause to suspect or believe is for a court to decide. The different formulations seek to impose a higher threshold for powers requiring "reasonable grounds to believe" which involve the invasion of a person's privacy, continued detention etc and decisions which require more mature reflection and consideration. In contrast, powers which are frequently exercised, for example stop and search and arrest powers are conditional upon the existence of "reasonable grounds to suspect". This is a much lower standard than "believe". In legal terms "reasonable grounds to believe" requires something closer to certainty. Reasonable grounds, if legally challenged, would be determined by "what was in the officer's mind at the time".

It is not necessary to have substantial proof before one can be said to "believe" but the existence of a belief implies that there is more information available. For example in the offence of handling stolen goods the mental element is "knowing or believing" that the goods are stolen.

Simple test: If there are ten steps from mere suspicion to certainty, then

reasonable suspicion may be as low as step two or three, whilst
reasonable belief may be as high as step seven or eight.

A police officer may receive information from various sources, some of it anonymous, stating that a person is responsible for an offence; he would have reasonable grounds to "suspect" but certainly not "believe".

In Shaaban Bin Hussien & others v Chong Fook Kam 1969 the court said (extract) -

'Suspicion' in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking; "I suspect but I cannot prove". Suspicion arises at or near the starting point of an investigation of which the obtaining of Cummings facie proof is the end. ........ To give power to arrest on reasonable suspicion does not mean that it is always or even ordinarily to be exercised. It means that there is an executive discretion to exercise the power.

The House of Lords stated in O'Hara v C.C. of the RUC (Times 13.12.96) that -

The test for arrest on reasonable suspicion was in two parts....

did the arresting officer have a genuine suspicion about the suspect; and
were there reasonable grounds for that suspicion.

A senior officer simply instructing that an arrest must take place is not sufficient. The officer being tasked to make an arrest must be briefed on (or already aware of) the reasons for the arrest so that he/she has the necessary suspicion outlined above.

In Jarrett v the West Midlands Police 2003 -

J tried to knock a traffic warden's ticket book out of her hands. An officer, attending the scene, had observed J's excitable state as well as listening to the traffic warden's explanation. She arrested J for common assault (using her general arrest powers under section 25 of PACE (repealed), J having refused to give her name/address). On appeal the question was whether or not the officer had the reasonable grounds for suspicion necessary to make the arrest. The Court stated in its judgement (summarised) -

The test as to whether there are reasonable grounds for suspicion to justify an arrest is

partly subjective, in that the arresting officer must have formed a genuine suspicion that the person being arrested was guilty of an offence; and
partly objective, in that there must be reasonable grounds for forming such a suspicion. Such grounds can arise from information received from another, even if it subsequently proves to be false, provided that a reasonable man, having regard to all the circumstances, would regard them as reasonable grounds for suspicion.

In the context of a case of this kind ........ the subjective and objective grounds are, except in rare cases, inextricably intertwined ....... In this case, the issue required the trial judge .....

(a) to concentrate on the officer's state of mind at the time of arrest and
(b) to approach the matter on a broad basis taking into account not only what she had been told by the traffic warden but what she had herself observed.

The Court held that the arrest had been lawful.

In Cumming & Others v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (2003) it was held that the fact that more than six people had the opportunity to carry out the offence, even though it is likely that only one or two were involved, is enough for an officer to have reasonable grounds to suspect and therefore arrest all the suspects.

In CC West Yorkshire v Armstrong 2008

A had been arrested on suspicion of rape following information and descriptions given by the victim and a police officer's adult daughter. The descriptions varied slightly between that given by the victim, the daughter and the actual appearance of A.

On appeal the court ruled that establishing grounds for suspicion calls for a limited test that is not applied too strictly and in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists the court should look at suspicion in the round to determine whether the low threshold has been cleared.

Examples - Reasonable Grounds to Suspect

(a) power to stop and search a person or vehicle;
(b) powers of arrest under section 24 and in respect of the powers of arrest preserved by Schedule 2 and all statutory powers of arrest created since the PACE Act 1984 came into force;
(c) search of premises following an arrest for an indictable offence; however where a search of premises takes place following an arrest for any other offence then there must be reasonable grounds to believe.

Examples - Reasonable Grounds to Believe

(a) inspector's authority to stop and search persons or vehicles under CJPO Act 1994;
(b) intimate search of persons in police detention;
(c) entry to premises without a warrant to arrest persons or recapture them;
(d) the power to delay access to a solicitor;

06/10/21 Ref: 006284/16

CENTRAL MIDLANDS AREA AGENCY ON AGING NEEDS ASSESSMENT THE
DOCUMENT 1 EAST MIDLANDS REGIONAL TRANSFUSION COMMITTEE GUIDANCE FOR
E AST MIDLANDS COACHING NETWORK CODE OF CONDUCT THE

Tags: freedom of, the freedom, freedom, police, information, midlands