insight police & law - pnld - document portal · insight police & law ... pnld criminal law...
TRANSCRIPT
insightPolice & Law
May 2017 Edition 28www.pnld.co.uk
PNLD legal adviser Nicola Robinson gives an overview of the amendments to firearms legislation that recently came into force under the Policing and Crime Act 2017
Changes to firearms law
Policy and practice news Promotion exam Q&As Case law and legal queries Career opportunities Updates on latest legislation
2 PNLD Police & Law Insight
ED
ITO
RIA
L Fire power The UK already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Despite this, loopholes have persisted in the legislation which have been used to defend the criminal use of firearms, until now.
This month, sections 125 and 127 to 130 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 came into force. These sections have amended and created new sections in the Firearms Act 1968 and Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which include amending the meaning of firearm, a new offence of possessing articles used to convert imitation firearms, and controls over defectively deactivated weapons and ammunition which expands on impact. Our legal adviser, Nicola Robinson, outlines the changes that have taken place (see p8).
These are important changes. In the year ending 2015, according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), imitation guns were used in 14 per cent of offences involving firearms, while in 11 per cent of offences the type of firearm was unidentified. Handguns remain the most popular firearm after air weapons, accounting for 26 per cent of offences.
It could be argued the new legislation has come at the right time as firearms offences, after a period of decline, have begun to show an upturn, rising to 13 per cent, according to the latest ONS figures on crime (see p6).
Our second feature focuses on HMIC’s State of Policing report. Its publication led to an embarrassing gaffe by the report’s author, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir Thomas Winsor, when, during an interview, he declared response officers “took nothing home” at the end of their shift compared with detectives. This led to a swift apology. However, the report shows considerably more sympathy as it argues the service continually picks up the slack of other public service cuts (see p12).
Tina Orr Munro,Editor, PNLD Police & Law [email protected]
Subscribe to our Police & Law Insight
mailing list
3PNLD Police & Law Insight
CO
NTE
NTS
Publisher:Chestnut Media, on behalf of the Police National Legal Database
PNLDPloughland House62 George StreetWakefield WF1 1DL
Publishing consultant: Marnie [email protected]
Editor: Tina Orr [email protected]
Designer:Keith [email protected]
Marketing Manager:Caroline Lecombercaroline.lecomber@ westyorkshire.pnn.police.uk
Marketing Officer:Ashley Firthashley.firth@ westyorkshire.pnn.police.uk
insightPolice & Law
www.pnld.co.uk
May 2017 – in this edition:
Cover photo:Pio3/Shutterstock
Missed a previous version? Don’t worry, we have them saved for you!
March 2017April 2017 February 2017
Read previous versions
NEWS• Terror hotline attracts thousands of calls from
the public p4• Young cyber criminals are motivated by peer respect,
says NCA report p5• Crime statistics reflect better reporting, but also an
increase in violent crime p6• National Crime Agency warns of dangerous heroin mix p7• Unexplained Wealth Orders set to become law p7FEATURES• Changes to firearms law p8
PNLD legal adviser Nicola Robinson gives an overview of the amendments to the Firearms Act 1968 and Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which recently came into force under the Policing and Crime Act 2017
• State of play p12 Syreeta Lund examines the annual State of Policing report by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Thomas Winsor
POLICE POLICY & PRACTICE p14NPPF STEP 2 LEGAL EXAM (FORMERLY OSPRE PART 1) PROMOTION EXAMS – Q&A p16POLICE CAREER OPPORTUNITIES p18LEGISLATION & STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS p20CASE LAW & LEGAL QUERIES p22
4 PNLD Police & Law Insight
NE
WS Terror hotline attracts thousands of calls from the public in
the wake of Westminster attackMore than 3,000 people have contacted the police with information about possible terrorist activity, following the launch of the Action Counters Terrorism (ACT) campaign in March after the attack in Westminster.
In addition to the calls, 300 people were referred regarding online extremist material and 850,000 people have watched the ACT films. The ‘Code Severe’ podcast – the first ever podcast from the police – reached number two in the charts.
‘Really heartening’Speaking at a two-day anti-terror
conference, Met Deputy Assistant Commissioner Lucy D’Orsi said the response had been “really heartening”. Counter-terror policing attended
the conference and exhibition to promote the National Barrier Asset
(NBA), which enables protective barriers to be deployed by any of the England and Wales Home
The ACT campaign encourages the public to report possible terrorist activity
Office forces. NBA equipment is in place around Parliament.
PNLD Criminal LawConference 2017
RESERVE YOUR PLACE!Tuesday 17th October 2017
Key speaker confirmed: Anthony Edwards
5PNLD Police & Law Insight
NE
WSYoung cyber criminals are motivated by peer respect,
says NCA report A National Crime Agency (NCA) report published this month into young cyber criminals has found that money is not necessarily their main motivation, with many of them more interested in proving themselves to their peers and boosting their online reputations.
The report is based on debriefs with offenders including ‘Subject 7’, jailed for Computer Misuse Act 1998 and fraud offences, who told officers: “It made me popular, I enjoyed the feeling… I looked up to those users with the best reputations.”The report identifies that some
offenders begin by participating in gaming cheat websites and ‘modding’ (game modification) forums before progressing to criminal hacking forums. The assessment notes that off-
the-shelf tools such as DDOS-for-hire services and Remote Access Trojans (RATs) are available with step-by-step tutorials at little to no cost to the user, making the skills barrier for entry into cyber crime lower than it has ever been.
Significantly younger It also highlights that while
there is no socio-demographic bias, with people across the country from different backgrounds among offenders, the average age of cyber criminals is significantly younger than other crime types. In 2015, the average age of suspects in NCA cyber crime investigations was 17 years-old, compared to 37 in NCA drugs cases and 39 in NCA economic crime cases.Subject 1, a member of a
hacking collective who sold DDoS tools and Botnet services, told officers that a warning from law enforcement would have made him stop his activities.The report also identifies
education and opportunities to use skills positively as helpful
in steering potential offenders towards a future career in cyber security. Richard Jones, Head of
the National Cyber Crime Unit’s Prevent team, said: “Even the most basic forms of cyber crime can have huge impact and the NCA and police will arrest and prosecute offenders, which can be devastating to their future. That means there is great value in reaching young people before they ever become involved in cyber crime, when their
skills can still be a force for good.“The aim of this assessment has
been to understand the pathways offenders take, and identify the most effective intervention points to divert them towards a more positive path.“That can be as simple as
highlighting opportunities in coding and programming, or jobs in the gaming and cyber industries, which still give them the sense of accomplishment and respect they are seeking.”
The NCA report identifies opportunities to use the skills of young cyber criminals positively, steering them towards a future career in cyber security
Pict
ure
© it
tipan
/ S
hutt
erst
ock
6
NE
WS
PNLD Police & Law Insight
Crime statistics reflect better reporting, but also an increase in violent crimeThe latest crime figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) paint a complex picture of crime levels across England and Wales, according to the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
NPCC Lead for Crime and Incident Recording, Chief Constable Bill Skelly, said crime levels were broadly stable and increases were driven by better reporting procedures and improved victim confidence.
Genuine increasesHowever, he added there
were some genuine increases – particularly with knife crime, which rose by 14 per cent, and firearms offences, up 13 per cent – reversing a downward trend.Mr Skelly said the figures
highlighted a complex picture around fraud and computer misuse with significant increases and an
Knife crime has risen by 14 per cent, according to the latest figures
Pict
ure
© m
rkor
nflak
es /
Shu
tter
stoc
k
estimated 5.4 million incidents occurring in the last 12 months.
‘Ask the Police’ Serving the Community - a winning solution that complements 101
Why not check out 100’s
of FAQ’s on ‘Ask the Police’
Search your local police force website
Saving the Police Service an estimated £25 million per
year in time and resources
Or visit: www.askthe.police.uk
For more details on embedding the content within your force website contact [email protected] or call 01924 294038
7
NE
WS
PNLD Police & Law Insight
Fentanyl, which is up to 100 times stronger than street heroin, and its analogue carfentanyl which is 100 times stronger again, are believed to have caused several recent deaths in the Yorkshire, Humber and Cleveland areas. A recent NCA and West Yorkshire
Police operation targeting a laboratory suspected of producing fentanyl and carfentanyl has led to concerns that the substances could have been distributed to drug dealers across a much wider area and that drug users in other regions are now also at risk.
Tiny amounts fatalEven in the unlikely event
that users know their drugs contain fentanyl, the chances of overdosing are high. Only 0.002g (1/50th) within a typical 0.1g heroin deal is potentially fatal, and the tiny amounts make it almost impossible to effect a controlled dose. Carfentanyl is fatal in doses as small as 0.00002g, which equates to a few grains. Tony Saggers, Head of Drugs
Threat and Intelligence at the National Crime Agency, said: “The NCA’s operation with West Yorkshire Police to locate and disrupt an illicit drugs laboratory
Public Health England has issued a drugs alert to medical and emergency services, public health and drugs services. Areas currently identifying or
suspecting spikes in heroin-associated drugs deaths this year are strongly advised to contact local coroners to establish if fentanyl is routinely screened for in toxicology results. If it is not, consideration should be given to submitting samples for re-testing.
National Crime Agency warns of dangerous heroin mix A deadly synthetic opioid recently detected in heroin supplies in the north east of England could be present in drugs around the UK, the NCA has warned.
Unexplained Wealth Orders set to become law
Pict
ure
© e
rmin
gut /
iSto
ck
Carfentanyl is fatal in doses as small as 0.00002g, which equates to a few grains.
has indicated that it may be a source for the production of fentanyl and other analogues. In particular, we now believe UK customers beyond the north-east region are likely to have received consignments of these drugs.”He added: “The criminal
justice implications of supplying fentanyl mixed into other drugs will inevitably be deemed as aggravating and claiming ignorance of the consequences is no defence.”
Unexplained Wealth Orders are just one of a series of new measures that will become law after the Criminal Finances Bill received Royal Assent.Other measures include a
number of new offences for corporations who fail to stop their staff facilitating tax evasion.
The new law will enable the proceeds of crime and terrorist money stored in bank accounts to be seized and forfeited, along with certain personal and movable items. The legislation also provides
legal protections for the sharing of information between
regulated companies, and extends the time period granted to law enforcement agencies to investigate suspicious transactions. Disclosure orders will be
extended to cover money laundering and terrorist finance investigations.
8 PNLD Police & Law Insight
FEA
TUR
ES Changes to firearms law
PNLD legal adviser Nicola Robinson gives an overview of the amendments to firearms legislation that recently came into force under the Policing and Crime Act 2017
On 2 May 2017, sections 125 and 127 to 130 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 (the 2017 Act) were brought in force. These sections have amended, and created new sections in, the Firearms Act 1968 (the 1968 Act) and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (the 1988 Act). The changes to the legislation have amended the meaning of ‘firearm’, created a new offence of possessing articles for use in converting imitation firearms, created controls in relation to defectively deactivated weapons and ammunition which expands on impact, and provided for the authorised lending and possession of firearms on private premises.Although firearms controls
within the UK are among the strictest in the world, the current legal framework has been subject to a number of criticisms, including the existence of loopholes being exploited by those with criminal intent, as well as the lack of definition of key terms within the legislation.
Readily convertibleIn 2015 a consultation paper
was published by the Law Commission, which aimed to address some of these issues, namely, the failure to define ‘lethal’, ‘component part’, and ‘antique’, the failure to impose a legal obligation that firearms be certified as being deactivated to an approved standard, and the failure of the law to remain in line with technological developments regarding whether an imitation firearm is ‘readily convertible’ into a live firearm. The amendments made by sections 125 to 128 of
the 2017 Act resulted from this consultation. Section 126, in relation to antique firearms, has yet to be brought in force.Section 125 of the 2017 Act
has amended section 57 of the 1968 Act, to define the terms ‘lethal barrelled weapon’ and ‘component part’, and added new section 57A to create an exception for airsoft guns.
Definition – ‘lethal’Section 57 of the 1968 Act
(D4437 on PNLD) contains the definition of a firearm and refers to a ‘lethal barrelled weapon’. Prior to the recent changes, there was no statutory definition of ‘lethal’ for the purposes of this legislation. The test used was from the case of R v Thorpe (1987), in which the judge stated: “The
Pict
ure
© P
io3
/ S
hutt
erst
ock
Although firearms controls in the UK are some of the strictest in the world, they have been criticised for loopholes which can be exploited by criminals, and the lack of definition of key terms within the legislation
9PNLD Police & Law Insight
FEA
TUR
ES
test is this. It must be capable of causing injury from which death might – and the word is ‘might’ – result if it is misused.” A more definitive statutory
definition has now been created in place of this test. Section 57(1B) now defines a ‘lethal barrelled weapon’ as ‘a barrelled weapon of any description from which a shot, bullet or other missile with kinetic energy of more than one joule at the muzzle of the weapon, can be discharged’.
Definition – ‘component part’Section 57(1D) has also been
added to the 1968 Act to provide a definitive statutory definition of a ‘component part’ in relation to a lethal barrelled weapon or prohibited weapon. This states that a ‘component part’ is: ‘(a) a barrel, chamber or cylinder, (b) a frame, body or receiver, or (c) a breech block, bolt or other mechanism for containing the pressure of discharge at the rear of a chamber, but only where the item is capable of being used as a part of a lethal barrelled weapon or a prohibited weapon.’
Airsoft guns – exceptionNew section 57A (D38590 on
PNLD) has created an exception for airsoft guns, stating that an airsoft gun is not to be regarded as a firearm for the purposes of the 1968 Act; however, this exception is not absolute. An airsoft weapon is defined by this section as a barrelled weapon that is designed to discharge only a small plastic missile (whether or not it is also capable of discharging any other kind of missile), and which is not
readily convertible into firearms prohibited by section 1 of the 1968 Act. As per section 1(6) of the 1982 Act, an imitation firearm is regarded as readily convertible into a section 1 (1968 Act) firearm if it can be so converted without the use of any special skills by the person converting it, and the work involved in converting it does not require equipment or tools other than those in common use by persons carrying out work and maintenance in their own homes.The 2017 Act has created a
new offence in relation to the conversion of imitation firearms, which can be found in new section 4A of the 1968 Act. Section 4A (D38577 on PNLD) creates an offence of being in possession or control of an article capable of being used to convert imitation firearms, where the person intends to use the article
Pict
ure
© fo
tora
win
/ S
hutt
erst
ock
capable of discharging a missile with kinetic energy at the muzzle of the weapon that exceeds the permitted level. The permitted level, as defined in section 57A(4), allows higher kinetic energy levels than the definition of a lethal barrelled weapon: 1.3 joules for automatic type weapons and 2.5 joules for single shot variants. These limits were set following scientific testing on the wounding potential of airsoft weapons operating at various levels.
New offence – converting imitation firearmsSection 127 of the 2017 Act
has added a new section to the 1968 Act, to create an offence in relation to converting imitation firearms. Section 1 of the Firearms Act 1982 (the 1982 Act) (D638 on PNLD) relates to the control of imitation firearms that are
A new section added to the legislation provides a definitive statutory definition of a ‘component part’ of a lethal barrelled weapon or prohibited weapon
PNLD Police & Law Insight10
FEA
TUR
ES
(whether by itself or with other articles) to convert such a firearm. Registered firearms dealers are exempt from this offence.
New offence – defectively deactivated firearmsSection 128 of the 2017 Act
has also added a new section to the 1968 Act, relating to the control of defectively deactivated weapons. There have been reports that poorly deactivated firearms are being illegally reactivated (ie being converted into illegal lethal firearms) and are being sold for criminal purposes. In April 2016, the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2403 came in force, establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques for ensuring that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable.New section 8A of the
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (D38578 on PNLD) gives effect to that Regulation, by creating a new criminal offence prohibiting the transfer of ownership of firearms that purport to be deactivated but do not comply with the deactivation standards specified by the Secretary of State. Section 8A(1) states that it is an offence to make such a weapon available for sale (including exchange) or as a gift, or to actually sell it or give it as a gift. Subsection (2) creates exceptions to the offence, where the recipients of the weapon are outside the EU, or, where the sale or gift would involve the transfer of the weapon to a place outside the EU.Subsection (8) creates another
exception in relation to firearms rendered incapable before 8 April 2016 (when European Regulation 2015/2043 came in force), which are sold or given as a gift by a
museum to another museum (both of which have a ‘museum firearms licence’ in place).A definition of a ‘defectively
deactivated weapon’, for the purpose of this offence, is provided by subsection (4), which states that something is a defectively deactivated weapon if it was previously a firearm and has been rendered incapable of discharging a shot, but it has not been rendered so incapable that it meets the technical specifications that apply at the time it is sold or given as a gift. Subsections (5) to (7) allow the
Secretary of State to provide the relevant technical specifications.Sections 129 and 130 of
the 2017 Act have made further amendments to the 1968 Act in relation to ammunition that expands on impact and the lending of firearms on private premises.
Change of status for expanding rifle ammunitionSection 129 of the 2017 Act
has amended section 5 of the 1968 Act (D551 on PNLD) (weapons subject to general prohibition), in relation to
Pict
ure
© S
iegi
/ S
hutt
erst
ock
Poorly deactivated firearms are being illegally reactivated and are being sold for criminal purposes
PNLD Police & Law Insight 11
FEA
TUR
ES
New legislation allows a person, without holding a certificate, to borrow a rifle or shotgun from another person on private premises and have it in their possession, as long as certain conditions are met
ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact. It has restricted section 5(1A)(f) to only apply to such ammunition which is specifically designed to be used with a pistol, therefore removing the prohibition on expanding rifle ammunition.Prior to this, special authority
had to be added to a certificate for the possession of expanding ammunition. Expanding rifle ammunition has now reverted to falling under section 1 of the 1968 Act and has the same status as solid bulleted ammunition.
Lending firearms on private premisesSection 130 of the 2017 Act has
added a new section to the 1968 Act in relation to the authorised lending and possession of firearms on private premises. Previously, section 11(5) of the 1968 Act and section 16 of the 1988 Act allowed a person to borrow a shotgun or rifle without a relevant certificate, from the ‘occupier’ of private premises. However, ‘occupier’ was not defined by the law and this resulted in uncertainty as to who was an occupier of premises for the purpose of lending a shotgun or rifle on premises. New section 11A (D38592
on PNLD) has been created to remove any such uncertainty. It allows a person, without holding a certificate, to borrow a rifle or shotgun from another person on private premises and have it in their possession, as long as the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) are met (and in the case of a rifle, the borrower is aged 17 or over). The first condition is that the weapon is being borrowed for either hunting animals or shooting game or vermin, or for shooting at artificial targets. The second condition is
that the lender is at least 18 years old, holds a relevant certificate, and either has the right to allow others to enter the premises for the purpose of shooting animals, game or vermin, or is authorised in writing by such a person to lend weapons on the premises. The third is that the borrower’s possession of the weapon complies with any conditions set out in the lender’s certificate, and the fourth is that during the time the weapon is borrowed, the borrower is in the presence of the lender or another person aged 18 or over who holds a relevant certificate.Subsection (6) allows a borrower
to purchase or acquire ammunition on the premises and have it in his possession for the time the weapon is borrowed, as long as the ammunition is for use with the borrowed firearm, it is allowed by the lender’s certificate, and it complies with any related conditions in the certificate.
The changes outlined above appear to have clarified a number of issues and the definitive definitions provided should allow more certainty to the police and courts when dealing with firearms cases and having to consider whether particular firearms or ammunition fall under the current controls and offences. Equally, the new offences in relation to the possession of articles for use in converting imitation firearms, and the transfer of defectively deactivated weapons, will hopefully be useful in preventing the increasing use of such weapons in criminal activity. However, only time will tell as to how effective these new offences will be and the level of impact they will have.Further information regarding
these changes can be found in Home Office Circular 006/2017 on PNLD at D38637-44.
Pict
ure
© a
luxu
m /
iSto
ck
12
FEA
TUR
ES State of Play
Mental health provision has reached such a state of ‘severity’ that the police service is being used to fill the gaps despite legislation being tightened to ease the strain, warns a report on the state of policing.The police service is being used
as a ‘first resort’ for people with mental health problems who need help – with many still spending a night in police cells because of the lack of beds in a health-based place of safety, according to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). “This is an unacceptable drain on police resources, and it is a profoundly improper way to treat vulnerable people who need care and help, not incarceration among criminals. Recently-enacted legislation to deal with this problem is very welcome, but it will only be effective if adequate provision is made available elsewhere,’’ according to Sir Thomas Winsor, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, in his State of Policing report, the annual review of policing in England and Wales, published last month.Section 81 of the Policing and
Crime Act 2017 (not yet in force) amends the Mental Health Act 1983 to place restrictions on places, including police stations, which may be used as a place of safety. Children and young people under 18 with mental health issues should not be detained in police cells and restrictions have been placed on the circumstance when adults with mental health issues can be taken into police stations. The College of Policing has looked at the increase in the use of
powers to detain people under s. 136 of the Mental Health Act; use of the powers increased to 28,271 in 2015, up from 17,417 in 2005-06, as community care dwindled.
Imperils public safetyThe report is based on
inspections carried out by HMIC between February 2016 and March 2017, and although Sir Thomas acknowledges improvements and praises officers for their dedication and bravery, he also highlights an “indefensible mosaic of inconsistent practices and standards” that “imperils” public safety. The review concludes that 18 of the 43 forces need to improve in one of the report’s main areas around efficiency, effectiveness or legitimacy. Poor forces were found to “lag too far behind the best”.
There have been some improvements in the arrangements for children suspected of being mentally ill, with a significant decrease in the number of children being brought to a police station as a place of safety rather than being taken to a hospital, according to the police watchdog. However, despite some progress, HMIC found children are still being detained unnecessarily at police stations when they have been charged with a criminal offence and denied bail. Local authorities are then responsible for providing appropriate accommodation. In all but the most exceptional circumstances, it is not deemed in a child’s best interests to remain in a police station. The report states that although forces are using alternatives to detention more effectively, children are still being
The police service is being used as a ‘first resort’ for people with mental health problems who need help
Pict
ure
© v
iatk
ins
/ Sh
utte
rsto
ck
Police forces are having to pick up the slack as cuts in other public services increase pressure on them; Syreeta Lund examines Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Thomas Winsor’s annual State of Policing report
13
FEA
TUR
ES
detained for too long, largely because of a lack of alternative accommodation.An estimated one in ten young
people have a mental health problem, according to the review, and this “should not be a matter for the police alone to deal with”. Sir Thomas stresses other agencies are suffering from a lack of resources impacting on the police: ‘’The inadequacy of mental health provision and the lack of parity with physical health provision in this country should disturb everyone. It should never be the case that someone who requires treatment, for any condition, should become the responsibility of the police simply because other agencies do not have the resources to act.’’No force was rated as
outstanding when it came to the police response to vulnerable people – 27 forces require improvement and four were inadequate. Three quarters of forces were found to be failing to properly protect the most vulnerable. HMIC considered this so serious that they have recommended the amendment to the police promotion system to ensure officers spend time working in units supporting vulnerable people, including children. Sir Thomas draws attention to
other areas for improvement, sometimes incorporating issues around use of police powers. Neighbourhood policing continues to be eroded. The review says that since 2015, there has been a substantial drop in the proportion of people who say they have seen the police regularly in their area. Police officers are routinely taken away from their local areas to meet demands in other parts of the force area, leaving a depleting
number of PCSOs as the mainstay of community teams.Powers to tackle anti-social
behaviour are also being used “inconsistently”, according to the review. Some forces are ten times more likely than others to use their anti-social behaviour powers, once population size is taken into account. HMIC will be looking at this issue during 2017.
Unacceptable variationsVariations in the extent to which
forces use their powers and pursue criminal justice outcomes is dubbed as “unexplained and unacceptable” in the review, which highlights as an example the rate of arrest for domestic abuse crimes – ranging from 25 per cent to 83 per cent. The Chief HMI also explains that in 2014 the inspection found that, at a national level, the police were failing to record 19 per cent of crimes reported to them. The greatest issue was around violent crimes and sexual offences, where the under-recording rates were 33 per cent and 26 per cent respectively.The use of technology in the
police service is also seen as
“lagging behind” as online crimes are on the increase. The review cites “a persistently weak approach to the adoption and implementation of technology”, particularly around high-quality intelligence. The Strategic Policing Requirement (SPR) requires “connectivity between forces” and emphasises the need for consistency, something police and crime commissioners and chief constables are all required to take into account. “Too many forces have large numbers of bespoke systems that only a small number of individuals know how to maintain. To address this, forces need to give deep thought to the ICT architecture that they are designing,’’ according to the review. It adds: “Very few forces are focusing on developing the digital skills of their officers and staff, despite a universal acceptance that digital skills are an increasingly important part of police work. Fewer still ensure that ICT and new technology are at the heart of their day-to-day work.” Yet there has been a substantial growth in cybercrime, fraud and offending against the vulnerable. Children are now digital-savvy but senior leaders in the police are at least “two generations behind, and are not recruiting enough people with the right skills to police the internet, to investigate digital crime or to make effective use of new technology”.Sir Thomas concludes that forces
need to learn from each other, particularly the best-performing forces, and improve consistency; if not they will simply be wasting money and risking public safety. The full report can be found at
www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/state-of-policing-2016.pdf
The report highlighted variations in arrest rates for domestic abuse crimes as “unacceptable”
Pict
ure
© s
deco
ret /
Fot
olia
14 PNLD Police & Law Insight
POLI
CE
PO
LIC
Y &
PR
AC
TIC
E Policy & Practice: Officers and staff can apply for education funding through bursary scheme
A scheme which gave dozens of officers and police staff across England and Wales financial support towards their education is set to re-open for applications.
The Policing Bursary Scheme launched last September saw 26 officers and staff share almost £90,000 in funding towards their studies; most bursaries were awarded to police constables and sergeants, with seven going to police staff.
One in four of those who got a bursary did not hold a graduate level qualification when they applied and four said they had not studied since school. They are now studying a wide range of subjects including criminology, cyber-security, leadership and psychology; most at postgraduate level and four as undergraduates.
Professional development This was the first time the scheme
had been run and it was open to all officers and staff, with funding available for up to two years of study. Later this year the College will re-open the scheme where applicants can apply for up to £3,000 a year towards their tuition fees to complete a range of higher education studies.
College of Policing Director of Knowledge, Research and Education, Rachel Tuffin said: “We were delighted with the response to the 2016/17 Bursary Scheme and were very impressed with the quality of the applications. They demonstrated the commitment to continuing professional development of our members across all levels of policing and a real appetite to develop knowledge and skills required to help make decisions based on the best available evidence.”
The bursary recipients are now studying a wide range of subjects including criminology, cyber-security, leadership and psychology.
Pict
ure
© S
turt
i / iS
tock
PNLD offer free access to police officers, staff and volunteers from any
work or personal deviceHow do I sign up?
It’s as easy as 1-2-31. Visit www.pnld.co.uk and select ‘Police Access’
2. Register using your police.uk email address
3. Activate your access via verification email within 24 hours
15PNLD Police & Law Insight
POLI
CE
PO
LIC
Y &
PR
AC
TIC
EPolicy & Practice: Social media companies should be fined for failing to remove illegal content
The influential, cross-party Home Affairs Committee has strongly criticised social media companies for failing to take down illegal content. The Committee called on the
Government to review the law and its enforcement, ensuring it was fit for the 21st century. Yvette Cooper, the former MP who chaired the Committee before the general election was called, said the lack of action by social media companies was “a disgrace”. She said: “They have been asked
repeatedly to come up with better systems to remove illegal material such as terrorist recruitment or online child abuse. Yet, repeatedly, they have failed to do so. It is shameful. These are among the biggest, richest and cleverest companies in the world, and their
Social media companies have been criticised for not tackling illegal content
Pict
ure
© O
dua
Imag
es /
Shu
tter
stoc
k
services have become a crucial part of people’s lives.“This isn’t beyond them to solve
yet they are failing to do so. They continue to operate as platforms for hatred and extremism without even taking basic steps to make sure they can quickly stop illegal material, properly enforce their
own community standards, or keep people safe.”Ms Cooper said it was “far
too easy” to find examples of illegal content from proscribed organisations such as National Action and jihadist groups, adding that it was “blindingly obvious” companies had a responsibility to proactively search their platforms for illegal content.“Given their continued failure
to sort this, we need a new system including fines and penalties if they don’t swiftly remove illegal content. Social media companies need to start being transparent about what they do. The idea that they can’t tell us what resources they put into public safety for commercial reasons is clearly ludicrous.”
New sentencing guidelines for magistrates came into force on 24 April 2017. However, there has been a lot of misinformation about the changes.
Here are the facts: One of the offences covered is speeding and sentence levels are changing for the most serious offences, with a new higher penalty being introduced for those offenders who drive at speeds excessively above legal limits.
This change to sentencing followed calls from respondents to the consultation on the Sentencing Council’s proposed new guidelines who said that the previous guidelines did not properly take into account the increase in potential harm that can result as speed above the speed limit increases.
The Council has therefore increased the penalty for the top band of seriousness to ensure that there is clear increase in fi ne level as the seriousness of offending increases. This means fi nes for these offenders will have a starting point of 150 per cent of weekly income rather than the existing level of 100 per cent of weekly income. This would apply to those who for example go at 41mph or more where there is a 20mph limit, 51mph or more where there is a 30mph limit or over 101mph on a motorway. Sentence levels for less serious offences are not changing.
The maximum fi nes allowed by law remain the same, so fi nes cannot exceed these. The maximum fi ne for speeding is £1000, unless it takes place on a motorway, in which case it is £2500.
From 24th April 2017, the way drivers are fi ned by the magistrates’ courts for speeding has changed
points
The starting point applies to all offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions
• Must endorse and may disqualify. If no disqualifi cation impose 3-6 points• Where an offender is driving grossly in excess of the speed limit the court
should consider a disqualifi cation in excess of 56 days* Information supported by the Sentencing Council
16 PNLD Police & Law Insight
NPP
F ST
EP
2 LE
GA
L E
XA
M The following questions are taken from Blackstone’s Police Q&As 2015, the essential revision tool for all police officers sitting the NPPF Step 2 Legal Exam (formerly OSPRE Part 1).
Crime: Firearms and Gun Crime
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
SHATTOCK owed KUSACK money. KUSACK drove to SHATTOCK’s house with a shotgun in the boot of the car. On arriving, KUSACK left the shotgun in the car and approached SHATTOCK. KUSACK threatened SHATTOCK with violence if the money was not paid back. SHATTOCK was in fear that KUSACK would use violence and paid the money. Even though the shotgun was left in the car, KUSACK fully intended using it if SHATTOCK failed to pay the money.
Has KUSACK committed an offence under s. 16A of the Firearms Act 1968?
BROWN’s marriage has broken up because his wife had an affair with MEADE. BROWN was very upset and went to MEADE’s home, where his wife was staying, with a shotgun and ammunition. BROWN intended to threaten them both into ending the affair. BROWN left the shotgun in the car and was let into the house; however, his wife was upstairs, refusing to see him. BROWN said to MEADE: “Tell her to come down, or I’ll get my shotgun from the car and I’ll take it upstairs to shoot her.” BROWN’s intent was genuine if his wife did not speak to him.
In relation to proof required that a person has committed an offence under s. 16 of the Firearms
BENTHAM was stopped by Constable RUBY while driving a motor vehicle. Constable RUBY stood outside the vehicle and conducted a radio check which revealed that the vehicle had just been circulated for its involvement in an armed robbery at a petrol station less than an hour previously.
BENTHAM overheard Constable RUBY calling for assistance and got out of the car. BENTHAM placed his hand in his pocket and with his fingers extended, pretended that he had a pistol in his pocket and told the officer to back away. Constable RUBY was not fooled by BENTHAM’s attempt and told him so. BENTHAM then gave up without resisting the officer.
A: Yes, provided SHATTOCK feared that KUSACK would use violence.
B: No, SHATTOCK was not aware that KUSACK was in possession of the shotgun.
C: Yes, even though SHATTOCK was not aware that KUSACK was in possession of the shotgun.
D: No, the shotgun was not in KUSACK’s physical possession at the time the threats were made.
Act 1968 (endangering life), which of the following statements is correct?
A: This offence will be complete if MEADE believed that a life was endangered.
B: This offence is incomplete, as BROWN’s threat was conditional.
C: This offence is incomplete, as BROWN did not have the shotgun with him at the time of making the threat.
D: This offence is complete as BROWN’s intent to carry out the threat was genuine.
Would BENTHAM be guilty of an offence under s. 17(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 (using a firearm/imitation firearm to resist arrest) in these circumstances?
A: No, holding his fingers like this will not amount to an imitation firearm.
B: No, because he did not have with him something which had been adapted or altered so as to resemble a firearm.
C: No, because the officer was not fooled by his attempt.
D: Yes, because his fingers had the appearance of a firearm.
Questions and answers reproduced with permission from Blackstone’s – www.blackstonespolice.com
17PNLD Police & Law Insight
NPP
F ST
EP
2 LE
GA
L E
XA
MAnswer 1 – B
Answer 2 – D
Under s. 16A of the Firearms Act 1968, a person commits an offence if he or she has in his or her possession a firearm or imitation firearm, with intent by means thereof to cause any person to believe that unlawful violence would be used against him or another. There is no need to prove the person had the firearm in his or her physical possession – therefore answer D is incorrect.There is no requirement to prove that the
victim actually feared that violence would be used against him or her; it is the intention of the suspect to cause that fear that is important and
for that reason answer A is incorrect.While there is no need for a firearm/imitation
firearm to be produced or shown to anyone, possession of a firearm/imitation firearm while making a general threat to someone who does not know of its presence is unlikely to fall within this section. Therefore, even though KUSACK was in possession of a firearm and made a threat of violence towards SHATTOCK, the firearm did not provide the ‘means’ of the threat and consequently answer C is incorrect.
Crime, para. 1.7.10.2
It is an offence under s. 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 for a person to have in his or her possession, a firearm or ammunition with intent by means thereof to endanger the life of another. There is no requirement to show that a person had the firearm/ammunition ‘with him’. The offence refers to possession, which is a wider requirement (which is why answer C is incorrect).This is a crime of ‘specific intent’ and the
prosecution would have to show an intention by the defendant to behave in a way that he or she
knows will in fact endanger the life of another (R v Brown and Ciarla [1995] Crim LR 328). Therefore, the important factor is the defendant’s belief, not some other person’s and therefore answer A is incorrect.That intent does not have to be an immediate
one and it may be conditional (eg intent to shoot someone if they do not do as they are asked – see R v Bentham [1973] QB 537). Answer B is therefore incorrect.
Crime, para. 1.7.10.1
Answer 3 – ASection 17(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 states:It is an offence for a person to make or attempt to make any use whatsoever of a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person.
The issue of whether a person’s fingers could be an imitation firearm was examined in the case of R v Bentham [2005] 1 WLR 1057. The Court of Appeal held that holding your fingers inside a jacket and threatening to shoot someone could amount to an offence involving an imitation firearm. However, the House of Lords overturned this decision, finding that the definition of an imitation firearm under s. 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 requires the defendant to carry a ‘thing’ which is separate and distinct from him or herself and therefore being capable of being possessed. Holding your fingers under your
coat will not amount to an imitation firearm for the relevant offences, because an unsevered hand or finger is part of oneself and therefore could not be ‘possessed’. Answer D is therefore incorrect.The ‘imitation’ must have the appearance of a
firearm but it is not necessary for any object to have been constructed, adapted or altered so as to resemble a firearm (R v Williams [2006] EWCA Crim 1650). Answer B is therefore incorrect. (Further, in K v DPP [2006] EWHC 2183 (Admin) it was held that in some circumstances a realistic toy gun, in this case a plastic ball bearing gun, could become an imitation firearm.)The offence allows for a person to make or attempt
to make use of a firearm or imitation firearm; therefore answer C is incorrect.
Crime, paras 1.7.10.1, 1.7.2.4
18 PNLD Police & Law Insight
JOB
S in
ass
oci
atio
n w
ith A
llPo
liceJ
ob
s.co
.uk The latest police and police staff vacancies across the UK
For a complete list of current police and staff vacancies in England and Wales, visit www.allpolicejobs.co.uk
Quality Assurance ClerkPolice National Legal Database£17,943 to £19,125
Programme Manager – Force Development Hampshire Constabulary£60,607 to £66,667
Project Co-ordinator – Regional Cyber Crime Unit Eastern Regional Special Operations Unit (ERSOU)£34,440 to £37,563
Regional Manager – Review, Retention and Disposal and Regional Data Quality teamsLincolnshire Police£39,522 to £43,473
Forensic Competence & Standards OfficerSurrey Police £29,359
Head of What WorksCambridgeshire Constabulary£53,760 to £58,701
Working for the Police National Legal Database, which is a business service of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner based at Ploughland House, Wakefield,you will check and input legislation and other PNLD documentation to ensure that they conform to agreed standards set by the Senior Legal Adviser and Legal Advisers.
Hampshire Constabulary is seeking applications for a challenging and rewarding role, reporting directly to the Director of Force Development and providing direction for theForce Development Team. This post-holder will play a key role in assisting the shaping of strategic objectives and providing organisational direction.
Applications are invited for the police staff post of Project Co-ordinator within the Regional Cyber Crime Unit (RCCU) of the Eastern Regional Special Operations Unit (ERSOU). This will be a Temporary contract until 31/03/2021, which may be extended depending on future government funding.
Are you looking to influence strategic change in policing and help build an understanding of how we can improve the service we provide to the public? If so, and if you already have experience in a strategic leadership role, we would like to hear fromyou. We need you to help us manage an unprecedented need to transform, adapt, and innovate to meet the demands of contemporary crime, disorder, and security threats, in order to safeguard local communities.
Closing date: 22/05/2017 Closing date: 30/05/2017
Closing date: 26/05/2017
Closing date: 31/05/2017 Closing date: 29/05/2017
Closing date: 26/05/2017
We are looking for a dedicated individual to work within our Information Management Unit to manage the progression of wide-ranging business change regarding the way the police forces of the East Midlands manage their data. This will include both its quality and the way in which it is reviewed and then retained or deleted.
Surrey and Sussex Forensic Investigations Department are looking to recruit a Forensic Competence & Standards Officer. The post is a full-time appointment. The post-holder will have responsibility for the development of the Crime Scene Services ISOaccreditation programme.
Essential Blackstone’s titles by PNLDGet an exclusive 20% discount when ordering titles via PNLD through the
Oxford University Press website. Use code ALFLY5FSubstantial discounts are available online when purchasing a PNLD handbook with a 12 month subscription to the database
Essential titles from Blackstone’s, endorsed by the PNLD
Save money when you buy both Operational Handbooks
Blackstone’s... Your Partner in Professional Policing
1
Get an exclusive 20% discount at the stand, or when ordering titles through the Oxford University Press website. Use code EXBPNLD15*.
*Offer valid until 30/11/15
£27.99£22.39
£29.99£23.99
£29.99£23.99
£34.99£27.99
£34.99£27.99
£34.99£27.99
Substantial discounts are available online when purchasing a PNLD handbook with a 12 month subscription to the database
Essential Blackstone’s titles by PNLDGet an exclusive 20% discount when ordering titles via PNLD through the
Oxford University Press website. Use code EXBPNLD15
£27.99£22.39
£29.99£23.99
£34.99£27.99
£34.99£27.99
20 PNLD Police & Law Insight
LEG
ISLA
TIO
N &
STA
TUTO
RY
INST
RU
ME
NTS The Police and Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 (Application to Labour Abuse Prevention Officers) Regulations 2017 No.520
Already in force
These Regulations apply certain provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to investigations undertaken by labour abuse prevention officers (LAPOs) into labour market offences. LAPOs are officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority who are authorised by the Secretary of State and who are acting for the purposes of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 as an enforcement officer or Part 1 or 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, or are acting for any other purpose prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Regulation 2 applies the
provisions of PACE set out in regulation 3 to LAPOs, subject to the modifications specified in the Schedule. Paragraphs 2 to 10 of the Schedule make general modifications to the provisions of PACE so that they operate effectively in respect of LAPOs, whereas paragraphs 11 to 23 make specific modifications to the provisions of PACE for the same purpose. Regulation 3(a) to (c) applies,
and paragraphs 11 to 13 of the Schedule modify, sections 1 to 3 of PACE so that when a LAPO searches premises in reliance on a search warrant, a LAPO may search persons found on the premises only if the LAPO has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person may have concealed on him material which might be evidence in relation to a labour market offence. Safeguards on this
power include requirements to inform the person of the grounds for the search and to make and keep records. Regulation 3(d) to (g) applies
sections 8(1) to (5), 9(1), 15 and 16 of, and Schedule 1 to, PACE, which enable applications to a court for search warrants and production orders and the execution of warrants. Paragraph 14 of the Schedule modifies section 16 of PACE. Regulation 3(h) and (i) applies
sections 17(1)(a)(i), (1)(b), (2) and (4) and 18 of PACE, enabling LAPOs to enter and search property for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant or arresting a person for an indictable offence and to enter and search the property of an arrested person for evidence. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Schedule modify those sections. Regulation 3(j) to (m) applies
sections 19 to 21 and 22(1), (2)(a), (3), (4) and (7) of PACE, enabling the seizure and retention of material by LAPOs. Paragraph 17 of the Schedule modifies section 21 of PACE, including by providing that access and copying of material may be refused if it would prejudice the investigation of any offence, not only a labour market offence. Paragraph 18 of the Schedule modifies section 22 of PACE. The modifications provide that material seized or taken away by a LAPO, or seized or taken away by another person such as a police officer and passed to a LAPO, may be retained by a LAPO so long as is necessary in all the circumstances. Items that a LAPO has seized from a person on arrest on the grounds that, for example, it may be used to cause physical injury to another person must be passed to the police once the arrested person is handed over to a constable. Regulation 3(n) to (r) applies
sections 24(1)(b) and (d), (2) to
(4), (5)(a), (b), (c)(i) to (iii), (d), (e) and (f), 28, 29, 30(1)(a), (1A), (7) to (11) and 32(1) to (9) of PACE, in relation to arrest of suspects by LAPOs. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Schedule modify sections 29 and 30 of PACE. In particular, paragraph 20 modifies section 30 so that a LAPO who arrests a person elsewhere than at a police station is under a duty to deliver the person into the custody of a constable as soon as practicable after the arrest. Once a constable has taken a person into custody, the constable will then be under a duty to take the person to a police station as soon as practicable. Regulation 3(s) and (t) applies
sections 43 and 44 of PACE, to enable LAPOs to make an application for the further detention of a person by the police in relation to a labour market offence. Paragraph 21 of the Schedule modifies section 43 of PACE. The modifications provide that a court must consider whether it would have been reasonable for either the police or a LAPO to make the application earlier and that a court must consider what inquiries relating to the offence have been made either by the police or by a LAPO. Regulation 3(u) applies,
and paragraph 22 of the Schedule modifies, section 77(3) of PACE, so that when a jury is considering the confession of a mentally handicapped person, a LAPO is not considered to be an ‘independent person’ who is present in relation to that confession. Regulation 3(v) applies section
117 of PACE, enabling LAPOs to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of powers conferred by PACE. Paragraph 23 of the Schedule modifies section 117 of PACE to reflect that none of the powers conferred on LAPOs are exercisable only with the
21PNLD Police & Law Insight
LEG
ISLA
TIO
N &
STA
TUTO
RY
INST
RU
ME
NTS
The relevant documents have been updated on PNLD
The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 No.575
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Prescribed Police Stations) Regulations 2017 No 573
The Serious Crime Act 2015 (Commencement No. 7) Regulations 2017 No 511
Comes into force 22 May
Already in force
Already in force
These Regulations amend the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 (‘the 2012 Regulations’) to make clear that complaints which allege, and conduct matters which appear to involve, the abuse of position for a sexual purpose or for the purpose of pursuing an improper emotional relationship must be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (‘the Commission’). These Regulations also amend
the 2012 Regulations to make clear that the Commission may make recommendations to any person in cases where it has received a report following an investigation (other than an investigation by the appropriate authority on its own behalf) into such a complaint or conduct matter (or made a determination on an appeal relating to such a complaint).
These Regulations, which apply to England and Wales only, revoke and replace the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Prescribed Police Stations) (No. 2) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/1523). The Sexual Offences Act
2003 (‘the 2003 Act’) imposes notification requirements on offenders convicted of certain sex offences. These offenders are called ‘relevant offenders’. The 2003 Act requires relevant offenders to notify certain personal information to the police, both at the outset and periodically thereafter. Section 87(1) of the 2003 Act provides that relevant offenders give such notifications by attending at any police station in the relevant offender’s local police area which is prescribed in regulations. These Regulations
These Regulations are the seventh commencement regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 88(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’). Regulation 2 brings into force on 3 April 2017 the consequential provisions in Schedule 4 to the 2015 Act relevant to the commencement of section 67 of that Act by SI 2017/451.
The relevant documents will be amended on PNLD
consent of a person other than another LAPO. Regulation 3(w) applies
interpretation provisions in PACE, to the extent that they are relevant to the other provisions of PACE which have been applied to investigations by LAPOs. Regulation 4 makes transitional
provision for the period until relevant provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 come into force.
prescribe those police stations in England and Wales. For the purposes of section 87
of the 2003 Act, ‘local police area’ is defined in section 88(3) of the 2003 Act.
New legislation has strengthened the role of labour abuse prevention officers (LAPOs), the officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Pict
ure
© P
hoto
grap
heer
/ S
hutt
erst
ock
22 PNLD Police & Law Insight
CA
SE L
AW
& L
EG
AL
QU
ER
IES PNLD REF: C3460 R v Drinkwater 2016
Judge was correct to exclude defendant’s hearsay evidence that consisted of another man’s confession and subsequent retraction, as it was of no significant value to the case.Citation: [2016] EWCA Crim 16 Court: Court of Appeal
Summary
In two separate incidents, three young women were brutally attacked and sexually assaulted by a stranger who had worn a balaclava, had concealed his face and had wielded a large knife whilst the victims had walked home late at night. Specimens taken from both victims later revealed DNA profiles which matched that of the defendant, D. On an indictment for two counts of rape, two counts of robbery and one count of indecent assault, the defence suggested that there had been a credible possibility that a local man, H, since deceased, might have been the perpetrator of the second attack.Formal admissions regarding
H were put before the jury. However, amongst other things, the defence had also wanted to admit into evidence, pursuant to section 116(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and therefore to prove as true, a statement under caution, whereby H had admitted his involvement in the second incident, although, he had thereafter refused to sign the statement. In consideration section 114(1)(d) and (2) of the
Act, the judge refused the defence application; having exercised her discretion under section 126 of the Act. D was subsequently convicted on all counts of the indictment.D appealed against conviction.
D submitted that the judge, in having exercised her discretion, pursuant to section 126 of the Act, to exclude H’s hearsay evidence, had been irrational.
Held
The appeal would be dismissed.To prevent the potential
admission of barely relevant evidence, section 126 of the Act permitted the court to exclude hearsay evidence which lacked significant probative value. That had been the approach followed by the judge. No error could be found in her conclusion that the hearsay evidence in the case had lacked sufficient probative value to have permitted its admission. Further, the evidence that D had sought to put before the jury as true, had been internally inconsistent, confusing and contradictory. The evidence had not proved or assisted in the proof
of anything and had been of no value in determining the guilt or innocence of D.Furthermore, on the material
which had been before it by agreement, the jury had known that H had confessed to involvement in the second incident, albeit, it had also known that he had later retracted that confession. D had not identified any particularly salient fact which he had wanted to prove through the hearsay statement and which had not already been in evidence. The statement had, therefore, been of no significant value to the case, having had regard to the detailed admissions (and evidence) concerning H, which had already been in evidence. Accordingly, the case for exclusion, having taken account of the danger that to admit it would have resulted in undue waste of time and the value of the evidence, had been overwhelming.
For more information on the legal issues concerning this case, please go to the PNLD website and search on the following:PNLD REF D12570 – Criminal Justice Act 2003 – admissibility of hearsay evidencePNLD REF D12572 – Criminal Justice Act 2003 – cases where a witness is unavailable
23PNLD Police & Law Insight
CA
SE L
AW
& L
EG
AL
QU
ER
IESPNLD REF: C3458 R v Heddell 2016
An imitation firearm was a prohibited firearm under the Firearms Act 1968, as it was readily convertible without the use of specialist knowledge or skills.Citation: [2016] EWCA Crim 443 Court: Court of Appeal
Summary Held
The defendant, H, was a director of a company which specialised in the sale of decommissioned weapons, and which provided weapons to the film and television industry. A warrant was executed at both his home and business address. Amongst other things, a replica sub-machine gun with a barrel of less than 30cm was seized. The replica had originally been manufactured to fire caps. The prosecution asserted that the replica had been converted to be capable of firing live ammunition and that it was a firearm, pursuant to section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 (the 1968 Act). The removal of a steel bolt from the front of the chamber to enable the replica to fire live rounds had been a simple task achievable in 20 to 30 seconds and had not prevented it from being a firearm by the insertion of the bolt.H’s case was that the replica,
as seized, was incapable of discharging a shot, bullet or other missile so that it was not a firearm; rather, it was an imitation firearm that was readily convertible into a firearm. Thus, the item fell within the provisions of the Firearms Act 1982 (the 1982 Act), which applied to imitation firearms, and that, by reason of section 1(5) of that Act, H had a defence by showing that he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the imitation firearm was so constructed or adapted as to be readily convertible in to a firearm to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applied.
The appeal would be dismissed.The 1982 Act, of itself, had
not created any offence. It had widened the scope of the 1968 Act so as to cover imitation firearms which were readily convertible into firearms. Section 1(6) of the 1982 Act defined the circumstances in which an imitation firearm would be regarded as being readily convertible. The judge had been right to have left the contrasting cases of prosecution and defence for the jury’s consideration. It was clear that he had not withdrawn the issue from the jury or ruled that the 1982 Act had not applied to the present case.The terms in which he had
summed up the matter had clearly highlighted the distinction between the two cases advanced. It had left the jury in no doubt that, before it could convict, it had to be sure that the item had been a firearm in the sense that the weapon had already been converted so as to be capable of being fired in its present condition, as opposed to something which had started off life as an imitation firearm and which, notwithstanding the work which had been carried out, had not been converted into a firearm and which required further work to turn it into one by unscrewing the bolt. Accordingly, it had been left open to the jury to conclude that, although the item could readily have been converted, it had been or might have been an imitation firearm.
Accordingly, at trial for possessing a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act, H submitted that an offence contrary to section 1 of the 1982 Act ought to be added to the indictment. The judge in ruling noted that the prosecution had alleged that the item was a firearm and not an imitation firearm. In that respect, he would leave that matter to the jury. The issue, therefore, left to the jury, was whether the replica had been a firearm within the definition of section 57(1) of the 1968 Act. When the judge summed up, he put to the jury the conflicting contentions of the prosecution and defence in relation to that issue. Subsequently, H was convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm, contrary to section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act.H appealed against conviction.
Among other things, H submitted that the judge had:(i) incorrectly ruled that the 1982
Act had not applied to the present case; and(ii) improperly withdrawn the issue
of fact from the jury as to whether the item in question might have been an imitation firearm within the 1982 Act,and thus, to have potentially
deprived him of the defence available under section 1(5) of that Act. Consideration was given to section 1(6) of the 1982 Act.
Continued on p24
24 PNLD Police & Law Insight
CA
SE L
AW
& L
EG
AL
QU
ER
IES
For more information on the legal issues concerning this case, please go to the PNLD website and search on the following:PNLD REF D638 – Firearms Act 1982 – control of imitation firearms readily convertible into firearms to which section 1 of the 1968 Act appliesPNLD REF D4437 – Firearms Act 1968 – interpretationPNLD REF D545 – Firearms Act 1968 – requirement of firearm certificate
The jury could only have convicted if it had been sure of the case advanced by the prosecution and had taken the view that the need for the removal of the steel bolt had not in, realistic terms, meant that the item could not be discharged or that it had remained an imitation firearm. Accordingly, the issue of fact had been properly left to the jury. Further, H had not been deprived of the defence
available under section 1(5) of the 1982 Act. The judge’s direction had been couched in terms that, if the item was thought to have been an imitation firearm, then the jury would have to return a verdict of not guilty, since the prosecution had failed to prove that the item had been a firearm. A direction in those terms had, in fact, been favourable to H, since it had not required him to prove the statutory
Log onto the PNLD website to view other recent cases:R v Murray (2016) (PNLD REF: C3472) – A judge was not required to give a Lucas direction regarding alleged lies in police interview or at trial; the standard direction as to the burden and standard of proof were sufficient.
Studying for police exams?PNLD – the criminal law resource of choice for police
As part of the police force subscription, ALL Police Officers and staff can have unlimited access to the legal database on their own personal devices – no longer having to pay for a subscription! Available to access on any mobile or desktop device, PNLD’s responsive website makes it even easier for you to study away from work, while travelling, or at any time to suit you. Tap into a wealth of legal information that will help you to achieve your full potential. Our team of Legal Advisers can answer all your criminal law questions. With our extensive number of Acts, Regulations, Case Summaries and our easy to understand legal guidance notes – studying has never been easier.
Register for Police Access
defence available to a person in possession of a readily convertible imitation firearm, under section 1(5) of the 1982 Act.
CA
SE L
AW
& L
EG
AL
QU
ER
IES
25PNLD Police & Law Insight
Using Body-Worn Videos to record interviews
Question: Can Body-Worn Video (BWV) be used to record urgent interviews away from a police station (interviews provided for by PACE, Code C, section 11.1)?
Answer: We are not aware of any statutory provisions that would prevent you from using BWV when interviewing a suspect away from the police station. However, the College of Policing’s guidance on Body-Worn Video states at page 29:
“BWV should not be used for formal investigative interviews (e.g., the ABE interview for evidence-in-chief purposes, or a significant witness interview for the purpose of preparing a statement), nor may BWV be used for interviewing suspects as it would contravene PACE Code C.
It is also currently unsuitable for recording interviews with vulnerable or intimidated witnesses and victims.”
For urgent interviews away from a police station, it is likely to be a matter of force policy as to whether the specific equipment used was approved by your force and in what circumstances they should be used. It may therefore be worthwhile contacting your force policy unit to find out if any such policies are in place.Even where it is acceptable to
use BWV in such circumstances, this will need to be in addition to a written record. It will not negate the need to make a written
record and contemporaneous notes. PACE requires a written record to be made, and makes no provision for the replacement of this by alternative recording methods. PACE, Code C, 11(b) states that an accurate record must be made, any written record must be made and completed during the interview unless not practicable, and if such a record is not made during the interview, a reason for this must be recorded and a written record of the interview must be made as soon as practicable after the interview is completed.
Your legal queries answeredOur highly accredited team of legal advisers offer a wealth of legal knowledge and professional
expertise. We receive, research and respond to many legal queries from our customers, often complex in nature. Below is our response to a recent query.
Our team of highly qualified legal advisers receive regular emails from
customers on pertinent points of law. See the latest notable legal query
for more information.
Customers can ask our legal team a question by email.
We aim to answer all queries within 48 hours of receipt.
Remember – you can contact us for clarity on criminal law
Your legal questions answered
insightPolice & Law
is published by Chestnut Media, on behalf of PNLDwww.pnld.co.uk
For more information, and to subscribe, please [email protected]
#PoliceLawInsight
Missed a previous version? Don’t worry, we have them saved for you!
March 2017April 2017 February 2017
Read previous versions