Regina V Commissioner Of Police For The Metro Case Summary

After a short period of time two German police officers arrived and asked Detective Sergeant Loudon, the senior Metropolitan police officer to search the house and seized a number of properties in it. The respondent brought an application for judicial review against the appellant and the home secretary in respect of the decision by the police to enter his home in Hazlem... ... middle of paper ... ...rrest of a suspect. The force was proportionate to that heading because it was subject to the safeguards that it could only be done after a warrant of arrest had been put out by a magistrate or justice of the peace in respect of an extradition crime and where the evidence laid before he would, in his view, justify the issue of a warrant for the apprehension of a person accused of a similar domestic offense. Lord Hope (dissenting opinion), agreeing that SS 18, 19 and 32 did not apply where a person was arrested under a provisional warrant for an extradition offense, said that the common-law powers available when effecting an arrest did not extend to a search of the premises for evidence, that in any event the power did not apply for an apprehension on a provisional warrant and that the encumbrance with the claimant's Article 8 rights had not been proportionate.

This case questioned whether there was an infringement of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act by the Police upon the Claimant whereby the Police overextended their common law power in performing a search and seizure without a warrant. In the case of Rottman v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Mr. Michael Rottman (the claimant), a German Businessman was allegedly involved in fraudulent activities involving an East German Power Company. The claimant was accused of having access to stolen funds and no longer resided in Germany from 1995 subsequently on December 27, 1996 a court in Germany issued a warrant for his arrest. A request was made by the German authorities on 13 September 2000 to the Metropolis Police via Interpol for the extradition of Mr. Rottman to Germany. The Claimant resided in the South of England at the time of the issue of the extradition request.

Police Brutality. Yale Law & Policy Review, 17(1), 149-200. Smith, B. W., & Holmes, M. D. (2003). Community Accountability, Minority Threat, and Police Brutality: an Examination of Civil Rights Criminal Complaints*. Criminology, 41(4), 1035-1064.

It helps shape the argument by stating “… faulted the majority for “sanctioning a ‘shoot first, think later’ approach to policing.” Website Police Brutality Law & Legal Definition. (2016). Definitions.uslegal.com. Retrieved 2 November 2016, from

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.

In the suit, the action was brought against the German government and secrets service, the British government and its secret agents, the Minister of German Interior together with the Chancellor dealing with illegal covert operations and the acts of as aiding these activities. The case also involved infringement of the rights of privacy by way of allowing secret agencies such as the NSA and the GCHQ to collect electronic information of the citizens. The two groups have gone ahead to invite the Edward Snowden, who was the former contractor NSA contractor, to testify in their case. He has also been promised a safer passage in German assuring him that he will not be extradited. Edward Snowden who is hacker revealed the US spying activities to the public, it emerged clearly that some governments such as the German and such these governments have contravened the Constitution and other laws in collaborating with the NSA.

Two events that demonstrate when the civil liberties in America were tested were during the trial of Sacco and Vanzettii and Schenek v. United States. Schenek v. United States was a trial in 1919 that reaffirmed the conviction of a man for circulating antidraft leaflets among members of the armed forces. This trial upheld the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which by many deemed unconstitutional. The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. The Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war.

It is important that upon request, the criminal must be informed of their constitutional rights and must be allowed to exercise them. The Chief Justice Warren argues that when an individual is taken into custody, the Miranda warnings must be given. If not, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self – incrimination is jeopardized when the individual is deprived of his/her freedom. He also argues that the criminal can waive his/her rights and agree to make a statement once the Miranda rule has been given; though, a valid waiver is not presumed by mere silence. Chief Justice Warren further explained that the Miranda rule do not hamper the police in investigating crime because the general on the scene interrogation is not affected in any way.

The brief facts of the case were that the defendant Mr. Carr was arrested for having insulted and hurled offensive words at the arresting officer. In the decision of the court it stated that “arrest ought to be the last resort and should not be done if the name and address of the defendant is known by the police and that one will not fail to honour summons issued” . The decision in DPP v Carr has been used as the yardstick under common law in determining the threshold for which a police officer uses before arresting a suspect. In the appellate decision despite having held that the arrest was lawful, it went ahead to declare that it was improper since the police officer had the option of issuing summons. Smart AJ specifically gave due regard to the statements made by Sentas and Cowdery that “an arrest should be a measure of last resort” .

The District Court made findings of fact and ruled that DiFrancesco was a dangerous special offender within meaning of the statute. The court found that DiFrancesco's criminal history reveals a pattern of habitual and knowing criminal conduct of the most violent and dangerous nature against the lives and property of the citizens of this community. The United States then took its appeal saying that the District Court abused its judgement in sentencing that amounted to additional imprisonment for the respondent. The dismissal of the Government's appeal by the Court of Appeals rested upon it's conclusion that to subject to a defendant to the risk of substitution of a greater sentence is to place him a second time in jeopardy of life or limb.