Facts of the case: Rottman was arrested in the driveway of his house a few yards from the front door pursuant to a provisional warrant issued under section 8(1) of the Extradition Act 1989 following a request by the German government for his extradition. Upon arrest, the police searched the house and seized a number of articles. Rottman brought an application for judicial review against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in respect of the decision by the police to enter his home to search for and seize items. The Divisional Court ([2001] EWHC Admin 576) found in his favour stating that the common law power of search and seizure following an arrest had been extinguished by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The relevant provisions in respect of search and seizure in PACE only related to domestic offences and accordingly the search of the claimant’s home had been unlawful and his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been violated. The Commissioner of Police appealed to the House of Lords against the decision made in the Divisional Court. The House of Lords considered the appeal of the Commissioner of Police against a Divisional Court decision on the powers of search and seizure. The Commissioner maintained that the officers, having lawfully arrested Rottman, had the power to search the house and seize material items under both the common law and s. 18 and s. 19 of the PACE Act 1984.
Procedural history of the case: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis was convicted by the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division on 26 October 2001. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis appealed to the House of Lords.
Ratio of the case: (1) The majority ruling ...
... middle of paper ...
... the reason for the outcome. This case raises a number of issues when it comes to statutory interpretation, when judges have to interpret legislation to give it effect. The question that always needs to be considered is whether they give it the effect that Parliament intended. In cases such as this, proportionality is also an important issue where attempts are made to find a balance between the interests of the individual and the interest of the wider community requiring a consideration of whether the interference with the human rights is greater than is necessary to achieve the aim. The case has proven to be a strong one in terms of precedent as it has been useful in other cases in dealing with the issues of common law power to search and seize in extradition cases, and an understanding of the restriction of ‘offences’ and ‘arrestable offences’ to domestic cases.
On 14th September 1984, he was convicted of provoked burglary, three murders and rape at Sheffield crown court. The applicant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment by the trial judge and recommended a minimum tariff of 18 years to the secretary of state for
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Mr. Cockburn concluded that the evidence presented in this case was misinterpret and misapprehend, the leading investigation was “unscientific and slipshod” which lead to the sentence of Edward splatt. Many questions were raised, whether police officers should collect trace elements from the crime scene? The involvemet of police officers collecting samples rather than scientific experts which could lead to wrong and misleading evidence? The scientific procedure undertaking in this investigation. And these collected samples collected from officers and tested would lead to unvaluable piece of evidence.After Edward splatt conviction, anattorney- general by the name of Mr Griffin keeped a close eye on the case and examined the moran report and
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
With reference to the orthodox and revisionist perspectives, assess the statement that ‘the establishment of the Metropolitan Police in 1829 was a rational solution to changes in society and the associated challenges of crime and disorder’. Use a contemporary example to demonstrate how these perspectives can be useful in interpreting modern policing activities.
Q1 THE COURT/S IN WHICH THE CASE WAS HEARD (OUTLINE THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
R v. Keegstra: s. 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms versus s. 319 (2) of the Criminal Code
Now, to the layman, that appears simply to be a frame up – when you arrest and charge and find the evidence subsequently. To make matters worse, when we examine the manner in which that evidence was put forward by the prosecution (a matter for which the director of Public Prosecutions must be held responsible), we find some startling inconsistencies, strange and frightening things. Like one man giving three statements. – two of them before Arnold Rampersaud was arrested, never mentioning the accused or anything to do with the accused. A third statement made after he had been arrested conveniently mentions the accused.
This broader trend contextualises the document as a police report. The meeting was attended by two policemen, who sign their names on the report as William Lennard P.S. and P. Quinn, Supt. The report was submitted to the Home Office from the Criminal Investigation Department, as a “Central Officer’s Special Report.”
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
Early in British history, the establishment of the Magna Carta gave its citizens basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial by jury in circumstances of accused misdemeanor. However, this document allowed “general warrant[s which gave consent to arrest accused criminals but did not have limitations on their search or seizure and that] did not expire until t...
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
Hodgson, Jacqueline. "Adding Injury to Injustice: The Suspect at the Police Station." Journal of Law and Society Mar. 1994: 85-101. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.
In relation to the express statutory exceptions to the general rule which is also known as ‘Reverse Onus Provisions’, i.e. one of the circumstances where an accused person bears the legal burden of proof in a criminal case, there is a possibility of these provisions falling foul of or being incompatible with Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides that; ‘Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty a...
The judicial statement of Roskill LJ observed in The Albazero [1977] AC774 held plenty of arguments in modern world today. To reach an extent of agree or disagree the judicial statement, it should be critically analysed from a legal perspective: