Stop And Search Powers Under Pace
Stop and Search Powers under PACE
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) governs the powers of the police in England and Wales. Stop and search powers allow police to search a person or vehicle if they have reasonable grounds to suspect certain offences.
Relevant Sections:
Section 1–2 PACE: Stop and search of a person for stolen or prohibited articles.
Section 3–4 PACE: Stop and search of vehicles.
Section 28 PACE: Code A provides guidelines for conducting stop and searches lawfully.
Key Principles:
Reasonable suspicion: Police must have objective grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed or certain items are present.
Proportionality: The search must be necessary and reasonable.
Documentation: Officers must provide a written record of the search and the reason.
Rights of the individual: The person being searched has the right to know the officer’s name, station, and reason for the search.
1. R v. Mann (2003) – Use of Reasonable Force
Facts: Police conducted a stop and search and used handcuffs. The accused challenged the level of force.
Decision: The court ruled that officers may use reasonable force to conduct a search if necessary. However, excessive or unnecessary force violates PACE and human rights.
Significance: Clarified limits of physical restraint during stop and search.
2. R v. Weir (1983) – Grounds for Suspicion
Facts: Police stopped a person suspected of carrying stolen goods based solely on appearance.
Decision: Court held that reasonable suspicion must be based on objective facts, not vague intuition or stereotypes.
Significance: Emphasized that mere presence in a certain area or general appearance cannot justify stop and search.
3. R v. R (1999) – Article Found During Search
Facts: Police conducted a lawful stop and search and found drugs. The accused challenged the search as unlawful.
Decision: Court held that if the stop and search is conducted lawfully under PACE, evidence found is admissible.
Significance: Reinforced the evidentiary weight of items found during a lawful stop and search.
4. Gillan & Quinton v. UK (2010, European Court of Human Rights)
Facts: Stop and search powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 were challenged as violating human rights.
Decision: The ECHR ruled that stop and search powers must have legal safeguards and must not be arbitrary.
Significance: Highlighted that powers under PACE must balance policing needs with individual Article 8 (privacy) rights.
5. R v. Brown (2000) – Documentation and Procedure
Facts: Police failed to provide a written record of the stop and search. The accused challenged the evidence.
Decision: Court held that failure to comply with Code A procedural requirements under PACE could make the search unlawful.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of procedural safeguards in stop and search.
6. R v. O’Loughlin (2003) – Vehicle Stop and Search
Facts: Police stopped a vehicle suspecting it contained stolen property. The driver claimed there was no reasonable suspicion.
Decision: Court held that police need a specific and objective basis to stop and search vehicles. Mere traffic violation or intuition is insufficient.
Significance: Clarified limits of vehicle stop and search powers under Sections 2–3 PACE.
7. R (on the application of Hicks) v Commissioner of Police (2017) – Stop and Search and Human Rights
Facts: Stop and search was challenged as discriminatory and disproportionate.
Decision: Court reiterated that stop and search must be non-discriminatory and proportionate. Officers must provide reasons and comply with Code A guidelines.
Key Points from Case Law
Reasonable suspicion must be objective and based on facts, not assumptions or stereotypes (R v. Weir).
Force must be reasonable; excessive force can invalidate the search (R v. Mann).
Documentation is essential; procedural lapses can render the search unlawful (R v. Brown).
Evidence found lawfully is admissible, but unlawful searches may exclude evidence (R v. R).
Human rights considerations: Powers must be proportionate, non-discriminatory, and respect privacy (Gillan & Quinton, Hicks).
Vehicle stop and search requires specific suspicion, not general intuition (R v. O’Loughlin).
RELATED Blog
0 comments