And yet the police are covered by Acts of Parliament and are held accountable for breaching them.

So quite what you mean, I don’t know.

By this analysis PACE is a fiction. And it isn’t.

@1 UKLiberty

Are they bound by specific legislation only, with crown immunity in other areas? In other words, can you add more to your comment on the OP, please?

I’m finding this one hard to believe.

The problem is that there is such a thing as ‘crown immunity’ but it doesn’t entail what the OP claims.

I don’t believe this – not an exclamation – I really don’t believe it. The crown has immunity. Until the post war Labour government famously changed it, that immunity applied to every official at your local council, for example. It doesn’t now. If it did an awful lot of our legislation would have no effect.

Basically, the Home Office is lying. They make far too much of a habit of it. It seems that everyone connected with our criminal justice system has a very loose concept of truth and tend to respond to questions with the first bit of drivel that comes into their heads.

The person responsible for this Home Office response should be sacked, at very least. Frankly they should go to prison. But we have a system in which those in charge make up the rules as they go along.

Cherub @ #3 has it exactly. As I say in the original post, “unless specifically stated, Acts of Parliament do not apply to the Crown.”

Parliament can of course make laws that apply to thew Crown service or parts thereof (though I’m not sure if this power extends to legislating for the personage herself). But if that is not specified, the laws are assumed not to. Hence in Lord Advocate vs Dumbarton District Council, as I mention, two relevant Acts were deemed not to apply to the Crown because they didn’t specifically say they did.

This arose because Section 5 of the Firearms Act, requiring Defence Council permission to possess a prohibited weapon such as CS Spray, a swan-off shotgun or an assault rifle, has no wording applying it to the Crown. As far as a policeman is concerned this law simply does not exist.

I submit that our laws should apply to prince and pauper by default, not creep to inconvenience our rulers only apologetically and infrequently.

Gary @7, the very point of s54 of Firearms Act is to allow certain authorised Crown servants acting as such to possess a firearm.

I disagree. If s54 did not exist, None of the Firearms Act would apply to Crown servants at all. See Subsection 1:

Sections 1, 2, 7 to 13 and 26A to 32 of this Act apply, subject to the modifications specified in subsection (2) of this section, to persons in the service of Her Majesty in their capacity as such so far as those provisions relate to the purchase and acquisition, but not so far as they relate to the possession, of firearms.

The point of s54 is to apply the named sections (albeit in a modified form) to Crown servants. Without this express application to the Crown, the Act would not bind the Crown.

So under countries with different constitutions, presumably it is illegal for anyone in the army to, say, drive a tank?

“The law doesn’t apply to policemen spraying CS gas”

The law doesn’t apply to policemen doing anything while on duty.

This article is utter rubbish, CS Spray ,not gas is contained in a prohibited article under section 5 of the Fire arms act, Police are only allowed to carry it when on duty, As such If a P.C is based at a Nick and they are parading at another one they can’t take it home with them and take it to work the next day, If they were doing Riot training and had to drive to the training base beofr e or after wrok they would have to book on, unpaid for the journey there and back,

A P.C would have to prove they were justifed in carryout common assaul as a case of self defence the same as I would if someone came at me agressivelyand I had a cut lemon in my hand and squeezed it at them causing their eyes to water,

Obviousl the difference is CS spray is contained in a propelant can, same as a pressurised water pistol full of concentrated Lemon juice would be, and We don’t have a lawful excuse to be carrying a compressed filled water pistol full of concentrated critric acid crystals,
The other obvious diffenrece between us and the police is when we are suspcted of something we can be named straight away, (police can’t) and certainly if we are charged with unlawfully killing someone we will be, Police who have been charged and then even cleared of Unlawful Killing (harry Stanley) or Deaths in custody where it’s down to one person ,not a chain of events where that police sevice was seen to act unlawfully, then the police are only ever named if an Indiidual Police officer has been found to act unlawfully.

As servants of the Crown Police officers are not covered by employment law they are governed by Police Regulations that set out their terms and conditions of service. They are an act of parliament and therefore lawful orders. Police Conduct Regulations 2008 set out the standards of behaviour expected of Police officers whist on and off duty these are also an act of parliament and are freely available on the internet.

As for officers not being named when subjec to criminal investigations this is actually decided by the courts on a risk/threat basis to thier families but if convicted thier names are always disclosed.

This suggests that immunity only applies to criminal sanctions:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/588/2102314.htm

So if it is right that the carrying of the spray is contrary to law, the decision of the police to do so could be challengable by judicial review.

Gary,

I disagree. If s54 did not exist, None of the Firearms Act would apply to Crown servants at all.

Then this really isn’t the OMGWTF moment you think it is.

A P.C would have to prove they were justifed in carryout common assaul as a case of self defence the sam

The Guardian video of the incident now shows the policeman was not under any attack and just turned up from the side and sprayed people in the face even though there were a group of police trying to escort one woman.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/31/video-police-cs-spray-protesters

@14 Tim

The use of a JR would be to challenge the Police Service in general in relation to its exemption from the law to carry CS gas.

Individuals who carry CS are still subject to criminal law if the misuse the CS ouside the agreed exemption. Police conduct regulations also govern the use of CS so any complaint about misuse should be invistigated and a police officer may not be guilty of criminal law but may be disciplned/dismissed if found to have misued CS as the burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt whereas the burden of proof in misconduct cases is the balance of probabilities.

Ok, I have found the very simple problem with this whole idea. Legislation online is not always shown as properly amended.

The functions of the Defence Council were transferred to the Secretary of State by the Transfer of Function (Prohibited Weapons) Order 1968. This was made under the Transfer of Function (Prohibited Weapons) Order 1968, and although I cannot find the act online, from teh title one would assume it enabled such an order.

This is why in Westlaw, section 5 is amended to say “the Secretary of State” in place of “the Defence Council”.

The Intepretation Act 1978 states that a reference to the Secretary of State means one of Her Majesty’s principle Secretaries of State (so including the Home Secretary.)

Damn, the second reference to the Order above should read Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act 1946.

Sunny,

The Guardian video of the incident now shows the policeman was not under any attack and just turned up from the side and sprayed people in the face even though there were a group of police trying to escort one woman.

It also corroborates your view that some people were trying to prevent the arrest.

Mobile phone footage has turned up, same as when Aaron Porter recieved racist abuse, but 10 weeks later no footage of Alfie Meadows, when he was hit from behind even though the police were standing in fron tof hm, yet there was loads of people with mobile phones, strange that,

@20 UK liberty

– it also shows fairly clearly that any claim of “suspected criminal damage” to the door by the posting of leaflets and bending the rubber insulating fringe to be an extremely tenuous suspicion, and therefore wrongful arrest.

It is therefore arguable that those citizens trying to prevent arrest are in fact attempting to prevent a crime from taking place.

Lets face it, these guys in the Guardian clip are not operating as Constables working for the Crown, they are operating more like Private Security Guards for Corporations. Hugh Ordure from ACPO Ltd says if we do not behave ourselves, more extreme measures are called for. Does he really think he has won the argument and we will agree to go home? Its time really he stepped down from representing the police, as his organisation is clearly a business serving corporate interests alone.

“This article is utter rubbish, CS Spray ,not gas is contained in a prohibited article under section 5 of the Fire arms act, Police are only allowed to carry it when on duty, As such If a P.C is based at a Nick and they are parading at another one they can’t take it home with them and take it to work the next day,”

Think you’re wrong. 2.5.4 of the ACPO guidelines specifically says officers can lawfully possess it off duty so long as this is necessary for the purposes of police duty. Given the courts traditionally give very broad interpretations of the law in favour of the police, I’d say this covers a lot.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2009/200905UNGIS01.pdf

Section 2.5.11 is also interesting. It’s to do with possession at public order events. It (1) recommends chief officers cover themselves and pass the buck to individual officers, and (2) says because of the danger of cross-contamination – i.e. hitting bystanders – other options may be more appropriate, and you should be very sure of yourself before deploying it. Sounds like they’re not really on solid ground here.

Hugh Ordure of ACPO Ltd says more extreme measures might be needed (whilst Tomlinson murderer runs free). Meanwhile in Egypt the Egyptian Army confirm they will not attack their own citizens:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/20111311965695371.html

David,

@20 UK liberty

– it also shows fairly clearly that any claim of “suspected criminal damage” to the door by the posting of leaflets and bending the rubber insulating fringe to be an extremely tenuous suspicion, and therefore wrongful arrest.

It is therefore arguable that those citizens trying to prevent arrest are in fact attempting to prevent a crime from taking place.

Wrongful arrest may provide a defendant with a defence to a charge of:
obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty contrary to Section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996;
Common assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Comment: But don’t hold your breath! – WikiCrimeLine on wrongful arrest (my emphasis in bold)

Lets face it, these guys in the Guardian clip are not operating as Constables working for the Crown, they are operating more like Private Security Guards for Corporations.

Do you think private property shouldn’t be protected by the police?

Hugh Ordure from ACPO Ltd says if we do not behave ourselves, more extreme measures are called for.

He did – I think he ought to listen to HMIC.

David,

Hugh Ordure of ACPO Ltd says more extreme measures might be needed (whilst Tomlinson murderer runs free). Meanwhile in Egypt the Egyptian Army confirm they will not attack their own citizens:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/01/20111311965695371.html

And from that same article, “After deadly clashes in which around 125 people were killed in Cairo and other cities, protesters complained that police were using excessive force.”

@ 26

Furthermore, “overzealous cop uses CS spray when he shouldn’t” =/= “army opens fire on protesters”. This isn’t Kent State.

@25 UKLiberty

Do you think private property shouldn’t be protected by the police?

Yes, I would rather they did do this. In the case of the arrested individual, it is very difficult to identify how they are protecting property, as the criminal damage claim is so tenuous.

The Police expect payments towards policing in Public spaces on private property (e.g. Football). Of course, if the Police assist covering up Tax avoidance / evasion by corporate bodies, then the Govt has less income with which to pay for the policing which we want – one we can respect to follow laws itself, and to safeguard freedoms as well as provide security

Now that the Tories are back in control of the big state, I hope the leftwing will rediscover why having a big state is always a bad idea.

There is such a thing as ‘crown immunity’. Nevertheless, police officers can be prosecuted, civil actions brought against police services, chief constables held liable for acts committed by officers under their command, and things like ‘kettling’ challenged under the European Convention.

Precedent may suggest to some that it is unlikely a police officer will be prosecuted for criminal offences in the line of duty. But it is absurd to suggest police officers and authorities are outwith the law in itself. Police officers are, for example, subject to the same law(s) as the rest of us on the use of force (but perhaps not CPS policy on prosecution).

IIUC the only person beyond the law is the Queen (but not her agents) but I doubt she will be policing any protests, so we can all rest easy tonight.

Unless you have affixed postage stamps upside-down.

29 Trooper Thompson

“Now that the Tories are back in control of the big state, I hope the leftwing will rediscover why having a big state is always a bad idea.”

Doubtful on a number of counts. Even were one to accept your basic assumption that the “big state” is always and under all circumastances a “bad idea”, you’d need to show me some evidence that the Tories/Coalition were actually going to make that big a difference, or indeed that their solution du jour “the Big Society” was a better way to organise society.

Of course, the left wing are highly unlikely to accept that the big state is ALWAYS a bad idea, because it isn’t ALWAYS true. We might as well hope that the Tories will come to accept that the Big Society, or Thatcher’s belief that there is no such thing as society, or that markets always have the answer and shouldn’t be interfered with, were always a bad idea.

@ Galen 10

Oh well, it was only a hope.

As for the new government, I don’t expect anything different from them, and I’ve been assuming that ‘the big society’ was a meaningless phrase used by Cameron to cover the fact he had no agenda other than to be in power.

As for society and markets, the former is the sum of all us individuals, and the latter is the sum of all our individual economic decisions. I’m suspicious of anyone who seeks to interfere and control either, especially as they usually succumb to the law of unintended consequences, lacking, as they do, the requisite God-like omniscience.

23. actually there are 2 expamples of Off duty specials beign charged with having a firearm on themas they’ve had their CS spray in theri car boot and been stopped for driving reasons ,only for the regualr polcie to see they’ve gottheir CS on them with no good reason.

Now then, Trooper Thompson, time to pull rank I’m afraid. Where did you get your idea that the whole of the “leftwing” was in support of New Labour’s paranoid, schizophrenic concept of domestic security? I think you’ll find that a sizeable percentage jumped off that bandwagon when their economic policies turned neo-liberal and Tony jumped in bed with George. It’s a shame that a decade has skipped you by, plus any understanding of the progressive anti-authoritarian movement.

Indeed, “Now that the Tories are back in control of the big state”, I hope the right wingers will realise that the disregard for civil-liberties isn’t a monopoly of the pseudo-socialist New Labour government. And, contrary to the wet dreams of Daily Mail readers, Gordon Brown wasn’t a Stalinist and the movement towards a security-paranoid state is part of a more fundamental social shift rather than a cartoon parody of outdated party political cliches.

Lieutenant,

I just googled “the progressive anti-authoritarian movement” (in speech marks) – it came up with no results, (although in time I’m sure this page will make it into the digital record), so I don’t feel too much shame in being ignorant of such a movement. You need to raise its profile. You may also want to clarify what seems to be a contradiction in terms, given the historical connotations of progressivism, and its penchant for interventionist policies.

You’re saying you’re anti-authoritarian, but leftwingers are often in favour of large amounts of state intervention, which is by its nature authoritarian. Above you indicate you are against the Big Brother aspects of New Labour and their military adventurism. Excellent! We can agree on this, but if you are truly anti-authoritarian, you must be consistent. The problem is not that the Tories are in power but that the state is too powerful (no matter who’s in government), and must be limited to a far greater extent than it now is. The leftwing should not despise economic liberty, notwithstanding the fact it is often used as a cloak by corporate interests, who do not really favour free competition most of the time, but would rather operate under massive regulatory systems which prevent competitors rising to challenge them.