Unit 6 Assignment A- The importance of working within the legal framework
Aimee (Ash) Baish
Legal framework
Legal framework is put in place by the government to ensure that the police know what their powers
are, and what they can and cannot do. This legal framework is easy to understand (so that if there is
anyone who does not follow it), and is an act of parliament, meaning that if a police officer does not
follow the framework in place, they can be punished themselves as they have committed a crime.
The main legal framework currently in place
The Police and Criminal Evidence act (1984)
The Police and Criminal Evidence act (PACE) which was put in place in 1984 was put in place to
establish which powers the police have in order to carry out their jobs of fighting crime while also
keeping the public safe (and protecting their rights). PACE has 7 codes of practice which all outline
how the police should carry out certain elements of their job, while also giving them protocol to
follow.
Code A (most recent updated in 2023) is the practice around stop and searches of people and
vehicles and the necessity of the officer making a record of that stop and search which the person
who was searched or owned the searched vehicle can see.
Code B (most recently updated in 2013) is the practice around the investigation of grounds and the
power to seize any property found on grounds and persons.
Code C (most recently updated in 2019) is the practice around the detention, questioning and
treatment of suspect in police custody. This included the necessity to explain the person’s rights
while detained as well as the rights of a person who has not been arrested that apply to a voluntary
interview.
Code D (most recently updated in 2017) is the practice that relates to the main methods used in the
identification of people who are connected to the investigation of a crime or crimes and the
responsibility of making sure that criminal records are kept in an accurate and reliable way.
Codes E and F (most recently updated in 2018) are the practices that relate to the audio recording of
interviews which are held in the police station (code E) and the visual recording (including audio)
with suspect interviews. There is no necessity for a visual recording in these cases, however if the
officer conducting the interview decides to visually record the suspect, then code F must be
respected.
Code G (most recently updated in 2012) is the practice that relates to the arrest of suspects.
Code H (most recently updated in 2022) is the practices that relates to the detention, questioning
and treatment od suspects in relation to terrorism. This includes the necessity to explain the
person’s rights while in custody for connections to terrorism.
When following PACE, everything you do would be lawful, so there would be no risk of a lawsuit for
something unlawful, all your evidence is admissible in court as it was obtained lawfully, you would
not be arresting someone unlawfully, and there would be no unlawful interview recordings. This
keeps you safe from any backfire of unlawful situations where a fellow officer did not follow the
PACE codes of practice. As you are not abusing your powers, this is not police misconduct, which is a
, chargeable offence, you can actually be sent to jail for any crimes you commit while abusing your
power.
Human Rights Act (1998)
The Human Rights act (HRA), put into place in 1998, ensures that all people are treated fairly, and
that in the case of criminal law, all have a right to a fair trial. This is written in section 6 of the HRA. In
summary, this states that you have the right to be believed to be innocent until proven guilty, you
also have the right to be told, at the earliest opportunity, what you were accused of. You have the
right to remain silent, and you have the right to have enough time to prepare your case.
When following the HRA, any evidence obtained from the person or the person’s property can still
be used in court and you would be treating the person fairly which would mean that there would not
be a lawsuit for neglecting their rights. This helps when fighting the case as there would be proof as
whether you did or did not follow the HRA. Therefore, if the defence tries to bring up that you did
not follow the HRA and breached the legal framework, you can use the fact that you told them on
arrest what they were being arrested for and that you gave them their right to remain silent but
gave them their caution alongside it.
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations act (1996)
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations act was brought into place in 1996. It gives the police
officers the outlines surrounding different aspects of a court case. For example, the main focus of
CPIA lies around the fact that disclosure has to be given in court. Disclosure is where the prosecution
(CPS) has to make sure that all evidence found is given to the court. However, CPIA also outlines how
long you can hold evidence, how you should hold the evidence, and how to prepare the evidence
depending on which court the evidence is going to.
If you follow the CPIA, you will be giving full disclosure to the court, your evidence may not have
degraded and every single piece of it would be admissible to the court, this is because you have not
broken the law by not sticking to the legal framework. This makes it easier for you to fight the case
as you have the correct evidence, a good amount of evidence, and admissible evidence. It also
makes the cross-examination easier as you would not be penalised for being incompetent.
Consequences of not following the legal framework
The Police and Criminal Evidence act (1984)
If you do not follow the codes of practice under PACE, you are then abusing your power as a police
officer, this means that you can be punished for this. You can lose your job, and there are many
other effects of this as well. For example, if you obtained an illegal audio recording of a conversation
between your suspect and their lawyer, you are infringing on their rights, and their legal privilege.
You can lose your job for this, however, as this audio recording was obtained unlawfully, that means
that it is inadmissible in court, meaning that the victim of the crime may also be affected. As they
may begin to experience threats from the accused, or if the evidence would have helped the
prosecution you may find that the victim may be affected by the loss of the trial (if that were the
outcome) due to your unlawfully obtained evidence being inadmissible to the court. However, the
opposite also applies, if you do not carry out an investigation properly and then do not find evidence
to submit to the court, the case may be thrown out, as you need evidence to charge the suspect and
to prove their guilt.
