The Police and the Law
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5002300302 |
| Date | 01 July 1950 |
| Published date | 01 July 1950 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
166
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
by extending the right of appeal to the Secretary of State in all cases
where there has been a finding of guilt, whatever the punishment, and
that the appeal may be against either this finding or the punishment or
both.
If
the
recommendation is accepted, the practical effect will be
small indeed. Most Watch Committees merely act as a confirming
authority and the number of cases where they revoke
Or
alter a Chief
Constable's award is small. Incidentally we wonder how the idea grew
up that a Borough Chief Constable had not the power to dismiss a
constable or call on him to resign. We have frequently heard it expressed,
but
the regulation is quite clear. His decision, subject to any general
direction of the Watch Committee, shall be to, (a) dismiss the case, or
(b)
to remit it to
the
Watch Committee, or
(c)
impose one of the punish-
ments prescribed by the Regulations. These punishments include those
mentioned above. All such punishments awarded except a caution are
subject to confirmation by the Watch Committee.
It
is extremely
unlikely
that
any change which is made as a result of the Report will
take the form of bringing the Counties into line with the Boroughs;
indeed, we understand the Standing Joint Committees do
not
want
such a change; they are content to continue the present practice, it
having existed for many years and therefore not constituting a new
whittling down of their powers.
The
Police
and
the
Law
ARREST
OF
'
SUSPECTED
PERSON'
WHEN
PREVIOUS
CONVICTIONS
NOT
KNOWN
TO
THE
POLICE
IN the January issue of this
JOURNAL
the recent case of R. v.
Fairbairn (now reported at 1949 2
K.B.
690) was noted in its relation
to the law of arrest without warrant of persons found offending against
section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.
The
principle of that decision
has now been carried a stage further, or at any rate shown to have a
wide application, by the new and important ruling of the Court of Crim-
inal Appeal in R. v, Clarke (1950, 1
All
E.R. 546). We now have the
authority of that Court for saying that a person who is proved to have
frequented or loitered about a place within the meaning of the Vagrancy
Act, with intent to commit a felony, and proved at the subsequent trial
to have had previous convictions, can be properly described as a ' sus-
pected
person'
within the meaning of the Act even though the police
officers, who give evidence of his frequenting or loitering with that in-
tent and who arrested him without warrant, were unaware at the time
of the arrest of the existence of the previous convictions.
To continue reading
Request your trial