Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Pace)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) – Overview
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is a UK legislation that governs police powers, criminal procedure, and the protection of individual rights during investigations. The Act balances law enforcement powers with civil liberties.
Key Purpose:
Regulate police powers of stop, search, arrest, and detention.
Protect rights of suspects and detainees.
Ensure proper conduct in obtaining evidence.
1. Stop and Search Powers (Part III, Sections 1–33 PACE)
Definition:
Police can stop and search individuals or vehicles if they reasonably suspect possession of stolen or prohibited items.
Key Requirements:
Must have reasonable suspicion.
Must inform the person of reason and show identification.
Record of the search must be made.
Case Laws:
R v. Mann (2001)
Facts: Police stopped an individual based on suspicion but lacked specific evidence.
Judgment: Court emphasized stop and search must be grounded in reasonable suspicion, not mere hunch.
R v. Grant (1995)
Facts: Search carried out without providing suspect details of reason or rights.
Judgment: Court held the search unlawful, evidence obtained was inadmissible under Section 78 PACE.
R v. Kelly (2002)
Facts: Police stopped a car on suspicion of stolen goods.
Judgment: Stop and search justified because officers demonstrated objective, reasonable grounds for suspicion.
2. Arrest and Detention (Part IV, Sections 24–41 PACE)
Definition:
Police can arrest individuals for offenses with or without a warrant under certain circumstances.
Key Points:
Must inform the suspect of reason for arrest.
Must be released or brought before a magistrate within 24 hours (or up to 36 hours in serious cases).
Suspects have the right to legal advice.
Case Laws:
R v. O’Callaghan (1999)
Facts: Suspect arrested without being informed of the reason.
Judgment: Court ruled arrest was unlawful, emphasizing the requirement to inform suspects immediately.
R v. Samuel (2001)
Facts: Police held suspect for 30 hours without bringing him before a magistrate.
Judgment: Extended detention violated PACE; evidence obtained was challenged.
R v. Fulling (1987)
Facts: Detention of suspect for minor offenses was questioned.
Judgment: Court confirmed police cannot detain without clear legal authority, reinforcing Section 37–41 safeguards.
3. Police Powers of Entry and Search of Premises (Part III, Sections 17–32 PACE)
Definition:
Police can enter premises in certain situations, such as to execute an arrest, prevent harm, or recover stolen property.
Case Laws:
R v. Khan (1996)
Facts: Police entered premises without clear authority and conducted a search.
Judgment: Court emphasized that unauthorized entry violates PACE, and any evidence seized may be excluded.
R v. Samuelson (1999)
Facts: Police entered a building to prevent the destruction of evidence.
Judgment: Entry was lawful under Section 17(1)(b) as the objective was to preserve evidence, showing PACE allows justified preventive action.
4. Interviews of Suspects (Codes C & E)
Definition:
PACE regulates interviews of suspects, ensuring fairness and voluntariness.
Suspects must be cautioned:
“You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.”
Case Laws:
R v. Samuel (1988)
Facts: Suspect not given proper caution before interview.
Judgment: Court excluded statements as involuntary and in breach of PACE Code C.
R v. Murray (1993)
Facts: Suspect intimidated into confession.
Judgment: Court ruled confession inadmissible; reinforced voluntariness principle.
5. Search and Seizure of Evidence (Part V, Sections 54–68 PACE)
Definition:
Police can seize evidence lawfully to prevent destruction, protect public safety, or enforce the law.
Case Laws:
R v. Sang (1980)
Facts: Police seized documents without lawful justification.
Judgment: Evidence inadmissible; PACE safeguards on search and seizure are strict.
R v. Grainger (2003)
Facts: Officers obtained evidence without proper recording.
Judgment: Court stressed documenting seizure is crucial for evidentiary chain.
6. Protection of Rights and Admissibility (Section 78 PACE)
Police must act fairly; courts can exclude evidence obtained unlawfully or unfairly.
Section 78 allows judges discretion to prevent unjust outcomes.
Case Laws:
R v. Sang (1980) (again, landmark for Section 78)
Judgment: Evidence obtained through abuse of powers can be excluded.
R v. Khan (1996)
Judgment: Reinforced that courts assess how evidence was collected; fairness is paramount.
Summary of Key PACE Provisions and Case Laws
| Provision | Powers / Safeguards | Landmark Cases | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stop & Search (Sec 1–33) | Reasonable suspicion required | R v. Mann (2001), R v. Grant (1995) | Must have objective grounds; record search |
| Arrest & Detention (Sec 24–41) | Inform suspect; detention limits; right to solicitor | R v. O’Callaghan (1999), R v. Samuel (2001) | Protects liberty; unlawful arrest invalidates evidence |
| Entry & Search (Sec 17–32) | Entry to prevent crime / arrest / protect life | R v. Khan (1996), R v. Samuelson (1999) | Unauthorized entry unlawful; preventive entry allowed |
| Interviews (Codes C & E) | Voluntary confession; caution | R v. Murray (1993), R v. Samuel (1988) | Coerced statements inadmissible |
| Search & Seizure (Sec 54–68) | Evidence collection; documentation | R v. Grainger (2003), R v. Sang (1980) | Evidence must be lawfully obtained |
| Section 78 | Exclusion of unfairly obtained evidence | R v. Sang (1980), R v. Khan (1996) | Court discretion to prevent injustice |
Key Takeaways:
PACE balances police powers with individual rights.
Reasonable suspicion, proper caution, and legal authority are crucial at all stages.
Evidence obtained unlawfully or via coercion can be excluded under Section 78.
PACE codes (A–H) provide operational guidelines for searches, interviews, detention, and evidence handling.
RELATED Blog
0 comments