There are certain procedures the police have

“ Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be deleted. All they do is protect guilty felons who have harmed guiltless people. The constabulary should be allowed to collar and incarcerate anyone they candidly believe has committed a offense, without blowing taxpayers ‘ money on a hunt for grounds or a test. ”

There are certain processs the constabularies have to follow when arresting and confining a suspect to maintain in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 provide suspects with certain basic homo rights, when interpreted aboard condemnable jurisprudence these can do jobs.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

Article six provinces it is improper for a public authorization to move in a manner, which is incompatible with a convention right as everyone is entitled to a just test. Public organic structures such as the constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service or local governments can non move in a sense as to sabotage the HRA. When construing what constitutes a dispute, article 3 of the HRA has to be taken into history, which requires the tribunals to read primary statute law in a manner that is compatible with the convention rights. Thus a constabulary officer that arrests a individual because he is moving to give consequence to an incompatible Act of parliament will non be in breach of article six [ 1 ] .

The constabulary are bound to move within the codifications of pattern, which are built around human rights in order to protect citizens and guarantee there is no maltreatment of constabulary procedures. An apprehension is a limitation on a person’s autonomy [ 2 ] , which ties in with article 5, which states that everyone has the right to liberty and security of individual and no one shall be deprived of that autonomy. In order for an apprehension to be lawful certain constabulary processs have to followed i.e. codifications. Police can legitimately collar with a warrant, which is pretty self explanatory, but they can besides collar without a warrant, which give the constabulary rather broad powers of apprehension. To forestall the breach of peace the constabulary can collar without a warrant if they reasonably surmise the committing of an arrestable offense regardless of whether the offense has really been committed. Examples of arrestable offenses are theft, robbery dangerous bodily injury [ 3 ] .

The constabulary besides have a general power of apprehension without a warrant for offenses that fall outside the general range of arrestable offenses for illustration causing loss or harm to belongings, an improper obstructor on the main road.

When a individual is arrested he must be informed of the apprehension, be told that he is non free to travel, informed of the evidences of apprehension and cautioned. If for some ground these processs are non followed a instance can be dropped or grounds may non be used in test due to an maltreatment of procedure, which in bend is a development of human rights. Therefore even if a suspect has committed an offense he may non be penalised for this if there is an maltreatment of procedure by the constabulary, as this would conflict a individuals human rights. When seting this into pattern it may be viewed that felons are acquiring off with offenses due to rectify processs non being followed, but it is besides at that place to protect people who may be victims of an maltreatment of procedure, so to take such basic human rights would hold a monolithic impact on a individuals autonomies and freedom. A suspect can merely be detained for a upper limit of 24 hours before being charged, but for serious offenses this can be increased to 36 hours. When detained a suspect must be treated right and regulations have to be followed, during this clip the constabulary can roll up grounds in order to bear down a suspect. If in this clip there is an maltreatment of procedure i.e. the constabulary do non adhere to their codifications of pattern [ 4 ] , grounds attained against the suspect or admittances made by the suspect may be discounted in test which in bend may do the suspect to be cleared of an offense he in fact committed.

Every citizen is awarded the right to a just test and an maltreatment of procedure contravenes this right, hence has to be observed. So despite the sum of police clip spent garnering grounds [ 5 ] the strength of a instance may be weakened due to an maltreatment of procedure whether intentional or non. This can be viewed form both sides in one manner it ensures that people are non mistreated and will non be wrongly accused, but in other senses it may halt a individual who as any grounds attained which sums to an maltreatment of procedure will be disregarded in test.

Evidence has to be collected to guarantee that merely a individual guilty of a offense is convicted, to take the basic human rights awarded under articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 would do monolithic deductions [ 6 ] . Whilst in bend possibly salvaging constabulary clip and money and ensuing in more strong beliefs, it may ensue in guiltless people being sent to prison. These basic homo rights are needed to guarantee that people are non mistreated, and were brought into being for precisely this ground. To travel to the extreme to state that they offer no good and merely let felons to acquire away with perpetrating offenses takes it to an extreme.

A balance has to be found to convey into line the condemnable justness system with the European Convention of Human Rights, so that grounds is non lost through simple mistakes made by the constabulary at the clip of apprehension. When garnering grounds prosecution is guaranting that there is adequate grounds to guarantee a realistic chance of strong belief, so this clip is needed to let the system to work. To take these human rights is an utmost position, which would ensue in pandemonium in the justness system, as a person’s basic human rights would non be protected.


Barry, J et Al. @ Advanced Criminal Litigation in Practice’ 7Thursdayedition ( Oxford University Press 2005 )

Farran, S. The Uk before the European Court of Human Rights: Case Law and Commentary ( Blackstone Press, 1996 ) .

Manchester, Salter, Moodie and Lync, Researching the Law ( Sweet & A ; Maxwell, 1996 ) .

Plowden, P. Criminal Litigation in Practice, 7ThursdayEdition ( Northumbria Law Press 2005 )

Rock, R. Textbook on Civil Liberties and Human Rights, 4Thursdayedition ( Oxford University Press 2002 ) .

Wadham, J. and Mountfield, H. Blackstones usher to the Human Rights Act 1998, 3rdedition ( Oxford University Press 2000 ) .


Millennium Development Goals Health Impact Health And Social Care Essay<< >>Why for Durkheim is modern society criminogenic

About the author : admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.