High Court
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839205600303 |
| Date | 01 August 1992 |
| Published date | 01 August 1992 |
| Subject Matter | High Court |
HIGH
COURT
APPOINTMENT OF CUSTODY OFFICERS
Vince v Chief Constable
of
Dorset
It
is essential for the proper administration of the criminal law that all
aspects of the
PACE
Act 1984 be executed upon the basis of the same
interpretation throughout the country. The difference of opinion which
arose between the Chief Constable of Dorset and the Police Federation
as to the interpretation of s 36 of that Act was therefore amatter of public
importance, although the litigation reported in Vince v Chief Constable
of
Dorset [1992] 1 WLR 47 was by originating summons, and not by way of
an application for judicial review. The High Court held, however, that in
view of the difficulty of finding a decision which was being challenged, the
procedure adopted would be acceptable, particularly as the Chief Constable
had not challenged the procedure until his counsel did so in his opening
address. Section 36 requires the Chief Constable to designate the police
stations to be used for the purpose of detaining arrested persons and to
appoint custody officers who will take charge of the arrested persons and
decide whether they are to be charged with an offence and whether they
are to be detained or bailed and so on. In Dorset, these police stations
operate on a three-staff system, save one where an off-duty officer is on
stand-by. To each of the others, three sergeants are attached as custody
officers.
Due
to leave, sick leave and attendance at court, there has not
been a sufficient number of officers to ensure that normally there is one
who is on duty. Representatives of the Police Federation sought a
declaration that (1) s 36(1) imposes a duty to appoint a sufficient number
of custody officers to ensure that normally one will always be on duty,
(2) that an acting sergeant may not be appointed, (3) that no one but a
designated custody officer may lawfully carry out the function of that
office, except in an emergency or other unforeseen circumstances, and
(4) that no officer may be appointed a custody officer for more than one
designated police station.
Section 36(1) provides that 'one or more custody officers shall be
appointed for each designated police station'. Does this mean that one
must be appointed and that more may be?
If
so, does it mean that sufficient
must be appointed to ensure that normally a custody officer will be on
duty at each designated station? The principal bone of contention between
the parties lay in the claim by the Chief Constable that the subsection
required him to appoint one for each station, but left all other questions
entirely within his discretion. He contended that the subsection was clear
and without ambiguity, so that once he has performed what is expressed
to be his duty (to appoint one officer, as a minimum) in respect of each
designated station, he could not be compelled to do more. The court held,
however, that, although the subsection might bear this meaning, it might
also mean that it was making provision for the complement of each
202
To continue reading
Request your trial