Legislation
| Date | 01 December 1983 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058303000412 |
| Published date | 01 December 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
153
Legislation
Brian
Williams
considers
the
revised
Police
and
Criminal
Evidence
Bill,
and
its
implications
for
practice.
The
Police
and
Crimmal
Evidence
Bill
had
been
in
Committee
for
some
tlme
when
the
last
govern-
ment
called
the
general
election
m
June,
and
this
was
reflected
m
a
number
of
significant
changes
made
to
the
Bill
It
is
now
under
debate
again,
and
could
become
law
early
m
1984 -
appropriately,
according
to
some
of
its
critics.
For,
despite
the
concessions
made
by
the
previous
Home
Secret-
ary,
the
Bill
continues
to
arouse
controversy.
It
will
certainly
have
a
profound
impact
upon
probation
work
and
probation
clients
m
its
present
form.
Police
powers
are
increased
in
a
number
of
areas.
On
the
street,
their
powers
to
stop
and
search
suspects
will
be
greatly
strengthened
in
a
clause
which
has
aroused
the
opposition
of
the
Institute
of Race
Relations
among
others.
These
opponents
contend
that
the
power
will
be
abused
and
that
it
will
bear
disproportionately
upon
black
young-
sters.
There
are
also
increased
powers
to
set
up
road
blocks,
backed
up
by
a
power
of arrest,
about
which
similar
fears
have
been
expressed.
Longer
periods
of
detention
for
suspects
are
introduced.*
up
to
36
hours
without
access
to
a
lawyer,
and
from 48
hours
to
6
days
without
a
Court
appearance
according
to
circumstances.
Worries
about
these
provisions
may
be
eased
by
the
proposal,
published
in
a
White
Paper
at
the
same
time
as
the
Bill,
for
a
greatly
extended
duty
solicitor
scheme,
though
it
is
unlikely
that
such
schemes
will
operate
around
the
clock
even
in
city
areas.
In
any
event,
the
increased
power
carries
the
risk
that
suspects
will
feel
pressured
to
sign
statements,
fearing
that
they
might
otherwise
be
held
for
substantial
periods
without
redress.
The
controversial
power
allowing
doctors
and,
when
no
doctor
is
available,
police
officers,
to
conduct
’intimate
body
searches’
remams,
though
it
is
restricted
in
the
new
Bill
to
suspects
who
are
believed
to
be
concealing
weapons.
Fingerprint
and
samples
may
be
taken
from
any
suspect
over
the
age
of
10,
and
m
some
circum-
stances
the
Bill
and
its
accompanying
code
of
guidance
allow
this
to
be
done
without
a
parent
or
social
worker
bemg
present.
The
same
applies
to
the
questioning
of
children
and
of
mentally
handicapped
people
-
which
has
disappointed
many
people,
as
the
Bill
was
drafted
partly
in
response
to
the
Royal
Commission
on
Criminal
Procedure.
The
Commission
was
appointed
partly
as
a
result
of a
miscamage
of justice
in
the
Confait
case,
and
made
clear
recommendation
concerning
safeguards
when
questioning
the
young
and
the
vulnerable.
Finally,
the
new
Bill
still
contains
a
power
to
search
premises
for
evidence,
and
this
will
include
a
right
to
search
files
held
on
a
confidential
basis.
In
the
case
of records
such
as
our
own,
application
would
have
to
be
made
to
a
circuit
judge -
and
refusal
to
comply
with
a
disclosure
order
could
be
treated
as
contempt
of
Court.
Commenting
on
the
earlier
Bill,
the
Law
Society
wrote:
’The
Bill
tips
the
balance
too
far
towards
the
pohce
and
will lead
to
unacceptable
mtrusions
mto
the
lives
of law-abidmg
citizens.
It
fails
adequately
to
protect
the
innocent
from
the
possible
abuse
of
police
powers ’
Some
sections
of the
police
view
the
new
powers
as
unnecessary
(and
they
have
been
forcefully
opposed,
for
example,
by
Police
Review),
but
a
number
of
Chief
Constables
have
recently
said
that
the
Bill
has
been
watered
down
too
much
for
their
living.
Meanwhile,
the
British
Medical
Associ-
ation
is
saymg
its
members
will
not
co-operate
with
’intimate
body
searches’
and
many
of
the
oppo-
nents
of
the
previous
Bill
are
beginning
to
make
their
voices
heard.
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
which
point
of
view
wins
the
day.
To continue reading
Request your trial