On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 13:10:06 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>On Sep 6, 1:50 pm, "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
>> > My apologies if I am being a little short with certain people. I do
>> > appreciate all contributions on this subject. However, I think we are
>> > all well aware now of the two camps on the issue of "what are
>> > reasonable grounds", so if anyone has anything further to add it
>> > should be by way of citing an authority on the subject.
>>
>> You've probably seen this site but I though I'd mention it for completeness:http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Citizen%E2%80%99s_arrest
>>
>> It links to an essay on the changes introduced in 2005:http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/articles/civilianpowersofarrest.html
>
>Interesting links. I have seen the Rob Jerrard page before, although
>in my view it paints a wildly inaccurate picture.
>He claims civilian powers of arrest have been "significantly
>englarged". I personally can see no enlargement in the powers for any
>person to arrest - if anything, there are now additional tests of
>necessity which in fact restrict those powers where no restriction
>existed beforehand. Also, the offence must now be indictable instead
>of merely arrestable, which I presume further restricts civilian
>powers of arrest.

No, it does increase them.

"Arrestable" offences were those in a specified list, and did not
include all indictable offences.

-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
STICK: A boomerang that doesn't work.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sep 7, 12:30 am, Alex Heney  wrote:
> On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 13:10:06 +0100, Ste  wrote:
> >On Sep 6, 1:50 pm, "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
> >> > My apologies if I am being a little short with certain people. I do
> >> > appreciate all contributions on this subject. However, I think we are
> >> > all well aware now of the two camps on the issue of "what are
> >> > reasonable grounds", so if anyone has anything further to add it
> >> > should be by way of citing an authority on the subject.
>
> >> You've probably seen this site but I though I'd mention it for completeness:http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Citizen%E2%80%99s_arrest
>
> >> It links to an essay on the changes introduced in 2005:http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/articles/civilianpowersofarrest.html
>
> >Interesting links. I have seen the Rob Jerrard page before, although
> >in my view it paints a wildly inaccurate picture.
> >He claims civilian powers of arrest have been "significantly
> >englarged". I personally can see no enlargement in the powers for any
> >person to arrest - if anything, there are now additional tests of
> >necessity which in fact restrict those powers where no restriction
> >existed beforehand. Also, the offence must now be indictable instead
> >of merely arrestable, which I presume further restricts civilian
> >powers of arrest.
>
> No, it does increase them.
>
> "Arrestable" offences were those in a specified list, and did not
> include all indictable offences.

While it may encompass a greater number of offences, I submit that in
practice the power of arrest is now exercisable in a smaller number of
circumstances, having particular regard to the new test of
"necessity".

Indeed, as opposed to an arrest, it would be quite reasonable to ask a
person instead to give their name and address. If they do so, it is no
longer necessary to arrest them, because a constable will be able to
make the arrest later when the information is passed on. Bear in mind,
the courts have held that people usually do give correct names and
addresses.

It appears to me, Alex, that any ordinary person now exercising a
power of arrest is likely to find themselves in hot water, even where
the suspect is in fact guilty.

On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 18:30:21 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>On Sep 7, 12:30 am, Alex Heney  wrote:
>> On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 13:10:06 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>> >On Sep 6, 1:50 pm, "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > My apologies if I am being a little short with certain people. I do
>> >> > appreciate all contributions on this subject. However, I think we are
>> >> > all well aware now of the two camps on the issue of "what are
>> >> > reasonable grounds", so if anyone has anything further to add it
>> >> > should be by way of citing an authority on the subject.
>>
>> >> You've probably seen this site but I though I'd mention it for completeness:http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Citizen%E2%80%99s_arrest
>>
>> >> It links to an essay on the changes introduced in 2005:http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/articles/civilianpowersofarrest.html
>>
>> >Interesting links. I have seen the Rob Jerrard page before, although
>> >in my view it paints a wildly inaccurate picture.
>> >He claims civilian powers of arrest have been "significantly
>> >englarged". I personally can see no enlargement in the powers for any
>> >person to arrest - if anything, there are now additional tests of
>> >necessity which in fact restrict those powers where no restriction
>> >existed beforehand. Also, the offence must now be indictable instead
>> >of merely arrestable, which I presume further restricts civilian
>> >powers of arrest.
>>
>> No, it does increase them.
>>
>> "Arrestable" offences were those in a specified list, and did not
>> include all indictable offences.
>
>While it may encompass a greater number of offences, I submit that in
>practice the power of arrest is now exercisable in a smaller number of
>circumstances, having particular regard to the new test of
>"necessity".
>
>Indeed, as opposed to an arrest, it would be quite reasonable to ask a
>person instead to give their name and address. If they do so, it is no
>longer necessary to arrest them, because a constable will be able to
>make the arrest later when the information is passed on. Bear in mind,
>the courts have held that people usually do give correct names and
>addresses.
>
>It appears to me, Alex, that any ordinary person now exercising a
>power of arrest is likely to find themselves in hot water, even where
>the suspect is in fact guilty.

I don't think the new test will actually make very much difference at
all, TBH.

I am quite sure that in the vast majority of cases where a member of
the public makes an arrest, they only do so because section 24A(4)(d)
applies.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If at first you DO succeed, try not to look astonished!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 18:30:21 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 12:30 am, Alex Heney  wrote:
>>> On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 13:10:06 +0100, Ste 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 6, 1:50 pm, "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> My apologies if I am being a little short with certain people. I
>>>>>> do appreciate all contributions on this subject. However, I
>>>>>> think we are all well aware now of the two camps on the issue of
>>>>>> "what are reasonable grounds", so if anyone has anything further
>>>>>> to add it should be by way of citing an authority on the subject.
>>>
>>>>> You've probably seen this site but I though I'd mention it for
>>>>> completeness:http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Citizen%E2%80%99s_arrest
>>>
>>>>> It links to an essay on the changes introduced in
>>>>> 2005:http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/articles/civilianpowersofarrest.html
>>>
>>>> Interesting links. I have seen the Rob Jerrard page before,
>>>> although in my view it paints a wildly inaccurate picture.
>>>> He claims civilian powers of arrest have been "significantly
>>>> englarged". I personally can see no enlargement in the powers for
>>>> any person to arrest - if anything, there are now additional tests
>>>> of necessity which in fact restrict those powers where no
>>>> restriction existed beforehand. Also, the offence must now be
>>>> indictable instead of merely arrestable, which I presume further
>>>> restricts civilian powers of arrest.
>>>
>>> No, it does increase them.
>>>
>>> "Arrestable" offences were those in a specified list, and did not
>>> include all indictable offences.
>>
>> While it may encompass a greater number of offences, I submit that in
>> practice the power of arrest is now exercisable in a smaller number
>> of circumstances, having particular regard to the new test of
>> "necessity".
>>
>> Indeed, as opposed to an arrest, it would be quite reasonable to ask
>> a person instead to give their name and address. If they do so, it
>> is no longer necessary to arrest them, because a constable will be
>> able to make the arrest later when the information is passed on.
>> Bear in mind, the courts have held that people usually do give
>> correct names and addresses.
>>
>> It appears to me, Alex, that any ordinary person now exercising a
>> power of arrest is likely to find themselves in hot water, even where
>> the suspect is in fact guilty.
>
> I don't think the new test will actually make very much difference at
> all, TBH.
>
> I am quite sure that in the vast majority of cases where a member of
> the public makes an arrest, they only do so because section 24A(4)(d)
> applies.

I think the "reasonably suspecting" test is simply there to cover the Self 
case loophole - where an offence retrospectively vanishes simply because the 
accused is found Not Guilty, because intent cannot be proved. It is not 
intended to cover cases where an offence really hasn't been committed...
-- 
John Briggs

>> I am quite sure that in the vast majority of cases where a member of
>> the public makes an arrest, they only do so because section 24A(4)(d)
>> applies.
> 
> I think the "reasonably suspecting" test is simply there to cover the 
> Self case loophole - where an offence retrospectively vanishes simply 
> because the accused is found Not Guilty, because intent cannot be 
> proved. It is not intended to cover cases where an offence really hasn't 
> been committed...

Section 4 doesn't confer any additional reasons for arrest, it limits 
those available under sections 1 and 2.

It doesn't close the Self loophole. Do PCSO have some other power or are 
they still vulnerable to this? If the first one to come to court 
involves a PCSO I look forward to the legal gymnastics from the bench in 
"clarifying" R v Self?

On Sep 9, 1:00 am, "John Briggs"  wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
> > On Sun,  7 Sep 2008 18:30:21 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 7, 12:30 am, Alex Heney  wrote:
> >>> On Sat,  6 Sep 2008 13:10:06 +0100, Ste 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 6, 1:50 pm, "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>> My apologies if I am being a little short with certain people. I
> >>>>>> do appreciate all contributions on this subject. However, I
> >>>>>> think we are all well aware now of the two camps on the issue of
> >>>>>> "what are reasonable grounds", so if anyone has anything further
> >>>>>> to add it should be by way of citing an authority on the subject.
>
> >>>>> You've probably seen this site but I though I'd mention it for
> >>>>> completeness:http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Citizen%E2%80%99s_arrest
>
> >>>>> It links to an essay on the changes introduced in
> >>>>> 2005:http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/articles/civilianpowersofarrest.html
>
> >>>> Interesting links. I have seen the Rob Jerrard page before,
> >>>> although in my view it paints a wildly inaccurate picture.
> >>>> He claims civilian powers of arrest have been "significantly
> >>>> englarged". I personally can see no enlargement in the powers for
> >>>> any person to arrest - if anything, there are now additional tests
> >>>> of necessity which in fact restrict those powers where no
> >>>> restriction existed beforehand. Also, the offence must now be
> >>>> indictable instead of merely arrestable, which I presume further
> >>>> restricts civilian powers of arrest.
>
> >>> No, it does increase them.
>
> >>> "Arrestable" offences were those in a specified list, and did not
> >>> include all indictable offences.
>
> >> While it may encompass a greater number of offences, I submit that in
> >> practice the power of arrest is now exercisable in a smaller number
> >> of circumstances, having particular regard to the new test of
> >> "necessity".
>
> >> Indeed, as opposed to an arrest, it would be quite reasonable to ask
> >> a person instead to give their name and address. If they do so, it
> >> is no longer necessary to arrest them, because a constable will be
> >> able to make the arrest later when the information is passed on.
> >> Bear in mind, the courts have held that people usually do give
> >> correct names and addresses.
>
> >> It appears to me, Alex, that any ordinary person now exercising a
> >> power of arrest is likely to find themselves in hot water, even where
> >> the suspect is in fact guilty.
>
> > I don't think the new test will actually make very much difference at
> > all, TBH.
>
> > I am quite sure that in the vast majority of cases where a member of
> > the public makes an arrest, they only do so because section 24A(4)(d)
> > applies.
>
> I think the "reasonably suspecting" test is simply there to cover the Self
> case loophole - where an offence retrospectively vanishes simply because the
> accused is found Not Guilty, because intent cannot be proved. It is not
> intended to cover cases where an offence really hasn't been committed...
> --
> John Briggs

It didn't cover the Self loophole, did it? The provisions when Self
was decided, are exactly the same as now, with regard to RGfS and the
distinction between arrests made for offences occurring in the past,
and those arrests made for offences occurring in the present
continuing.