Treating 17-Year-Olds in Police Custody as Children, Not Adults

DOI10.1350/jcla.2013.77.4.848
AuthorKate Gooch
Date01 August 2013
Published date01 August 2013
Subject MatterDivisional Court
Divisional Court
Treating 17-year-olds in Police Custody as Children,
Not Adults
R (on the application of HC) vSecretary of State for the Home Department
Keywords Police; Juveniles; Appropriate adult; European Convention
on Human Rights, Article 6, Article 8
The claimant, HC, was arrested four weeks after his 17th birthday on
suspicion of robbery. HC matched the description of one of two males
who had stolen an iPhone in a knifepoint robbery and, on these
grounds, was arrested and taken to Battersea police station.
As a 17-year-old, both the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
(PACE) and the accompanying Code of Practice C allowed the police to
treat HC as an adult rather than as a ‘juvenile’. The special protection
afforded to ‘juveniles’ under PACE was only available to those under the
age of 17, not 18. This had the effect that HC did not have an unqualif‌ied
right to speak to his mother or have his mother notif‌ied of his where-
abouts. Nor did he have the right to the assistance of an appropriate
adult, as the right to an appropriate adult is not available to those aged
17 save in cases of mental vulnerability.
On arrival, HC was read his rights, which included: the right to have
someone informed of his whereabouts; the right to consult legal advice;
and the right to consult a copy of the Code of Practice. Although the
available evidence did not indicate precisely what explanation was given
to HC when reading his rights, suff‌ice to say, HC did not initially request
a solicitor and there was no independent person available to recom-
mend that he should do so. HC did request that his mother be informed
of his whereabouts. However, since he was arrested on suspicion of an
indictable offence and the stolen property had not yet been recovered,
an Inspector authorised a delay to the exercise of that right in ac-
cordance with Annex B of Code of Practice C. No such delay would have
been possible had HC been a ‘juvenile’. When his mother did become
aware some four-and-a-half hours later that HC had been arrested, the
police prevented her from speaking to her son.
HC’s mobile phone was taken and examined. DNA, f‌ingerprints and a
photograph were taken. His grandmother’s address, where he resided
during the week, was searched in an attempt to discover the stolen
iPhone. Nothing of interest was found, but it was this search of the
grandmother’s house that caused news of HC’s arrest and detention to
reach his mother and prompted his mother to contact the police. At 8.41
pm, some four hours after his arrival at the police station, HC’s detention
281The Journal of Criminal Law (2013) 77 JCL 281–291
doi:10.1350/jcla.2013.77.4.848

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT