From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Should it be a more direct failure to uphold the law, say a
>police officer deliberately standing aside to allow an assault
>then they could also be charged as an accessory even though
>they took no active part. In such an example their failure
>to intervene would be sufficient as they had a sworn duty to
>intervene.
Steve,
The common law duty to prevent a breach of the Queens peace, such
as an assault, does not arise from an individuals status as a constable.
There are recent stated cases on this. R v HOWELL, which deals with the
definition of Breach of the Peace, confirms the power of any person to deal
with one which involves violence against a person.
"Any person may arrest without warrant where there is reasonable
apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace, even though at that stage
no breach had been committed. Accordingly there is a power of arrest for any
person for breach of the peace -
(a) when the breach of the peace was committed in the presence of the person
making the arrest;
(b) when the person making the arrest reasonably believed that a breach of
the peace was about to be committed; or
(c) to prevent an immediate renewal of a breach of the peace.
When such a power was exercised in relation to (b) the belief had to be an
honest belief founded on reasonable grounds even if it was mistaken".
The case of ALBERT v LAVIN confirms that " At common law every citizen has
the right (and, indeed, it is a citizen's duty) to detain any person
conducting themselves in such a manner".
Statute law covers this as well. The Criminal Law Act 1967 states at Section
3;
(1) "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in
the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest
of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large" .
(2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the
question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is
justified by that purpose."
Note that Section 3 (2) confirms that this Act only supersedes the common
law rules in relation to the prevention of crime and the arrest of
offenders. This was acknowledged in the House of Lords debate when Viscount
Colville, IIRC, raised it in debate and proposed an ammendment which became
Section 3 (2).
The common law rules on self defence remain. An offender who resists
attempts to make him stop what he is doing is automaticaly an agressor and
the common law rules on self defence apply. The defender may us as much
force as is neccessary to prevent himself getting hurt. An authority for
this is the Met Police "Officer Safety Manual".
If an individual fails to do his civic duty he can be bound over by
magistrates to be of good behaviour in future. A constable would also be
subject to the criminal law and discipline code as you point out.
The only excuse for failing to prevent a breach of the peace is the common
law one of "duress of circumstances". If IG has never held back until the
tactical situation improves he is a braver man than me <g>.
Regards, John Hurst.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
