Generally, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 otherwise known

as PACE could be seen as one of the greatest legislations in the United

Kingdom and this has had a great impact on the way police exercise their
powers and in the same vein the rights of the people/suspects are protected.
In a nutshell, the Police and Criminal Evidence Acct, governs the powers
and procedures of the police when dealing with criminal investigations. Suo
motos, it reels out guidelines for the collection, use and presentation of evidence
in criminal. Therefore, the Act, PACE, was introduced with the view of ensuring
that the police operate within the precinct of the law and at the same time
protects the rights of individuals during investigation and prosecution process.
Inter alia, it covers various aspects which are questioning, arrest, detention, the
admissibility of the evidence in court.
In a similar tone, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 sets out
the powers of the police to stop, search and arrest individuals and also states the
procedures they must follow iin the aforementioned duties, more so, it sets out
processes in which interviews are to be conducted, collection of the evidence
and how detainees are to be handled. In conclusion, The Police and Criminal
Evidence Act, 1984 established parameters with the view of preventing police
from abusing their powers and protects the rights of suspects – the right to silece
and right to legal representation.
Thus, it is trite to ask, “what does the power of stop and search connote?
According to Cambridge Dictionary, stop and search is succinctly defined ass:
“the power given to the police to search someone if they have a good reason to
believe they are carrying drugs, a weapon or stolen property or an occasion
when someone is searched”
Or
“to stop a person or vehicle and search them or it because you believe the
person is carrying or the vehicle contains drugs, a weapon or stolen property”

In a similar tone, Ndirect.gov.uk briefly enunciated that:

“…are police interventions to keep people safe. They are used to address drug
offences, burglary, theft and terrorism. They allow police officers to search you
or your vehicle if they have a reasonable grounds to do so…”
 Thus, from the foregoing definitions, it can be submitted that the power
of stop and search simply refers o the authourity given to law enforcement
officers to stop and search individuals or vehicles in order to prevent and detect
crimes. In other words, the power of stop and search empowers law
enforcement officers to stop individuals in public places and search them for
prohibited items such as stolen goods, weapons, or drugs. Consequently, this
powers granted by the legislation is intended to prevent the commission of
crime and maintain public safety. This is pursuant to Section 1 of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 which says:
(1) A constable may exercise any power conferred by this Section
(a) In any place to which at the time he proposes to exercise the power
public or any section of the public access on payment or otherwise as of
right or by virtue of express or implied permission…

However, before a stop and search could be carried out, there is a condition that
must fulflled which is a probable cause. Thus, a probable cause connotes a
reasonable belief that an individual has, is or will commit a crime and this belief
must be based on facts and not on conjectures, hunch or suspicions. Conversely,
a probable cause must satisfy a reasonable man test. A reasonable man test
means: whether or not a reasonable person would believe the same given the
same facts and circumstances and according to Stan Crowder and Brent
Turvey in their celebrated book “Ethical justice: Applied issues for Criminal
Justice Students and Professionals which says: “a probaible requires a
stronger evidence than a reasonable suspicion.” It was further elaborated in the
celebrated case Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (2010) where there
was a decision by the European Court of Human Right which ruled that the
United Kingdom’s stop and search powers without a reasonable suspicion under
the Terrorism Act, 2000 were a violation of the right to privacy. The
honourable court held that the powers of authourisation and confirmation as
well as those of stop and search under Section 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act are
neither sufficiently circubehind its implementationmscribed nor subject to
adequate legal safeguards against abuse.
Rationale behind its implementation
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 was enacted following the
recommendations made by the Royal commission on criminal procedure and the
principal objective of the Act was to consolidate and unify police powers under
one code of practice. Consequently, it aimed to strike a delicate balance between
protecting the rights of individuals and further empowers the police to carry out
their duties effectively.
Furthermore, another reason for the enactment of the Act was to address
concerns about the abuse of police powers and to ensure that the rights of
individuals were protected during criminal investigations. Therefore, the act
aimed to establish a clear and consistent framework for police powers and
procedures and at the same time safeguards the rights of suspects, witnesses and
victims.
In addition, the act further introduced various safeguards such the
requirement for police officers to provide reasons for arrests, the right to legal
representation and the regulation of police powers to search, detain and question
individuals.
Worthy to note is laws, such as PACE, that establishes and regulates police
powers are fundamental for the legal system in a democratic state. Thus, the
police perform important functions within the community such as prevention
and investigation of crimes. Therefore, these tasks require a close co-operation
between the police and the general public. Consequently, a good, trustful
relationship between police and citizens is essential. Before the emergence of
the Act in 1984, laws governing police powers were fragmentary and
insufficient which engendered into misconduct of the police and miscarriage of
justice and a classical example of this waws the case of the Birmingham Six
where manipulation of evidence led to the false conviction and imprisonment of
the suspect. This incident inevitably put a strain on that relationship. Therefore,
PACE was welcomed as an improvement by both the police and law
professionals suggesting that both groups considered the powers and
regulations to be sufficient.
Moreso, the Act introduced procedures for the fair treatment of individuals
during police investigations. This involves guidelines for conducting interviews,
using identification procedures and recording interactions with the view of
ensuring transparency. Overall, from a critical perspective, this Act is a positive
step towards ensuring fairness in investigations. Hence, the provision of
guidelines for the purpose of conducting interviews help to ensure probity and
further prevent any form of bias or mistreatment of individuals during the
investigation process. This is pivotal in maintaining the integrity of the
investigation and ensuring justice is served.

WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS OF PACE?

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 turns out to be one of the
best legislations made in the United Kingdom given its merits – that governs the
powers and procedures of the police during criminal investigations. Convertly,
while PACE has been instrumental in safeguarding and ensuring fairness in
investigations, it does not absolve itself from limitations. Thus, one of its
limitations is: it gives the police certain powers that could potentially infringe
upon individuals’ rights. For instance, pursuant to section 1(2) (a) of the Police
and Criminal Investigation, 1984 conferred on the police officer the
autonomy to stop and search any person, vehicle or anything which is in or on a
vehicle for stolen or prohibited articles, points and blades or fireworks on the
grounds that have reasonable cause for suspicion. During the course of
exercising these powers which are necessary for maintaining public, it can also
be subjected to abuse or bias, leading to the unfair targeting of certain
individuals or communities. Specifically, section 1(3) specifies that the power
only applies where the officer has a reasonable grounds to suspect that the
relevant article proved.
Like a clarion call, the act emphasizes on the importance of recording
interactions between the police and individuals which comprise the recording of
interviews, searches and other relevant interactions. By having all these on
ground, these turn out to be limitations because it ensures not only transparency
but accountability and probity in the investigative processes.
In addition, another limitation of PACE is its utter reliance on subjective
judgment by police officers. For instance, PACE allows the police to use their
discretion when deciding whether to arrest someone or conduct a search.
Therefore, this discretion can vary from one officer to another, potentially
leading to inconsistencies in the application of the law and unequal treatment of
individuals.
Furthermore, The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 fails to
explicitly address the use of emerging technologies in investigations such as
facial recognition or digital surveillance. As technology advances, there is a
need for updated legislation to ensure that these tools are used ethically and do
not violate individual’s privacy or civil liberties.
 Also, The Act does not provide comprehensive guidelines for the
treatment of vulnerable individuals such as individuals with mental infirmity
during investigation, children etc. additionally, while there are separate
provisions for vulnerable individuals, they may not always be sufficient to
address their specific needs and protect their rights adequately.
In summary, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 has played a
crucial role in ensuring fairness in investigations. These include potential
infringement upon individual’s rights, subjective judgement by police officers,
lack of guidance on emerging technologies and inadequate provisions for
vulnerable individuals.

EVALUATE WHETHER THESE LIMITS SUFFICIETLY PROTECT AGAINST

MISUSE OF POWER

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 was essentially enacted with
the view of protecting individuals against the misuse of power in legal cases.
Foremost, it should be noted that a law cannot exhaustively cure all forms of ills
malfeasance in a given state. However, a good law tends to cure considerably
ills and curbs, to a reasonable extent, crimes in a given state. Consequently,
PACE might not be extensively sufficient but its significance and its operational
efficacy cannot be undermined. The Act sets out guidelines and procedures that
the police must adhere to. Although, defaulters might not be criminally
responsible but evidence garnered in a manner contrary to the provision will be
inadmissible. Thus, this protects individuals from being illicitly stopped or
searched by police officers. This was given judicial backbone in the case of
Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire (1990) 2 ALL ER 326, CA where a
man was suspected of conspiracy to burgle was arrested at 10:50 PM and he
was taken to police station where he was detained until eventually released
without charge at 6:55 PM the next day. Consequently, he sued for damages for
false imprisonment arguing that the lack of an review by a senior officer at 5:25
PM (6 hours after the first custody officer first authourized his detention, as
required by section 40 of PACE) rendered his further detention unlawful under
section 34 until the first review took place at 7:45 AM. The judges agreed
saying “the relevant provisions of the Act were mandatory and awarded Roberts
500 pounds in damages.”
Furthermore, in accordance with section 58 of The Police and Criminal
Evidence Act, 1984 equally provides for access to legal advice. In other words,
this section gives an arrested individuals the right to have a legal representation.
The aforesaid section postulates thus:
“a person arrested and held in custody… shall be entitled, if he is so request to
consult a solicitor privately at any time.”

In the same vein, subsection (5) of the aforementioned section further

provides that: the person in custody must be permitted to consult a solicitor
within 36 hours.” This provision serves as a check on the power of the police
officers officiating in that capacity, limits the officer’s use of power to delay
beyond the stipulated time except there is a reasonable ground to delay an
individual arrested. If there is none, the individual has the right leave after 36
hours. This, invariably, protects the right of an individuals against unnecessary
delay of an individual during stop and search. Thus, in R v Samuel (1988) 2
ALL ER 135, CA where a man was arrested on suspicion of robbery and asked
to see a solicitor. The police refused, claiming such access might lead to the
suppression of evidence or the warning of accomplices and at a subsequent
interview, the suspect made admission later given in evidence. The Court of
Appeal said this was not good enough. Section 58 allowed the right to legal
advice to be delayed only where the police have reason to believe that allowing
access to a particular solicitor will have the undesirable consequences listed.
Since this was not the case and since the defendant’s solicitor testified that he
would have advised the defendant not to make any admission, the conviction
was quashed.
In a similar tone, PACE indeed provides the court with the power to
exclude evidence that has been obtained unlawfully or in violation of the codes
of practice. This provision serves multiple purposes. Firstly, the exclusion of
illegally obtained evidence acts as a deterrent against improper police conduct.
By allowing the court to exclude such evidence, PACE discourages law
enforcement officers from engaging in illegal or unethical practices when
gathering evidence. This helps maintain the integrity of the criminal justice
system and ensures that investigations are conducted in a fair and lawful
manner. Secondly, the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence reinforces the
importance of adhering to legal procedures. PACE sets out specific guidelines
and codes of practice that law enforcement officers must follow when collecting
evidence. By excluding evidence obtained in violation of these procedures, the
court emphasizes the significance of upholding these legal standards. This helps
safeguard the rights of individuals and ensures that evidence presented in court
is reliable and trustworthy. Thus, in Terry v. Ohio (1968), a landmark case in
the United States where the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of police stop-
and-frisks. The case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when an officer observed
three men, including John Terry, acting suspiciously outside a store. The officer
approached the men, identified himself as a police officer, and proceeded to pat
down their outer clothing for weapons. During the pat-down, the officer felt a
weapon on Terry's person and subsequently arrested him. Terry argued that the
officer's actions violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable
searches and seizures. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the officer's
actions were justified under the Fourth Amendment's "reasonable suspicion"
standard, as the officer had a reasonable belief that Terry and his companions
were armed and dangerous.
Oversight mechanisms are indeed crucial in holding law enforcement
accountable for any misuse of power. Internal affairs units are typically
responsible for investigating complaints against police officers and ensuring that
they adhere to department policies and procedures. Independent review bodies,
on the other hand, are external organizations that provide an additional layer of
oversight by conducting impartial investigations into allegations of misconduct.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is an independent body
in the United Kingdom that oversees the police complaints system. It
investigates the most serious and sensitive cases involving the police and
ensures that complaints are handled fairly and transparently. The IOPC plays a
vital role in maintaining public trust and confidence in the police by providing
an independent and impartial oversight mechanism. Overall, oversight
mechanisms like internal affairs units, independent review bodies, and the IOPC
are essential in ensuring accountability and transparency within law
enforcement. They help identify and address any misuse of power, promote
professionalism, and maintain public trust in the police. Consequently, in
Death of Ian Tomlinson (2009) Ian Tomlinson was a British newspaper vendor
who died during the G20 protests in London on April 1, 2009. He was caught up
in a clash between protesters and police officers near the Bank of England.
Initially, it was believed that Tomlinson died of a heart attack, but later evidence
emerged suggesting that he was unlawfully killed by a police officer. A video
footage showed a police officer pushing Tomlinson to the ground from behind,
causing him to fall and hit his head. The court held that Ian Tomlinson's death
was caused by a combination of factors, including a heart attack and internal
bleeding, which were likely exacerbated by the forceful push he received from a
police officer during the protests. The officer, PC Simon Harwood, was charged
with manslaughter,
Summarily, he Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) of 1984 is a
legislation in the United Kingdom that governs the powers and procedures of
the police in England and Wales. It was introduced to provide a balance between
the powers of the police and the rights of individuals. PACE sets out the rules
for the detention, treatment, and questioning of suspects, as well as the
gathering and presentation of evidence in criminal proceedings. Under PACE,
the police have certain powers, such as the power to stop and search individuals,
the power to arrest suspects, and the power to enter and search premises.
However, these powers are subject to various safeguards to protect the rights of
individuals. For example, the police must have reasonable grounds for suspicion
before conducting a stop and search, and they must inform a suspect of their
rights upon arrest. PACE also sets out the rules for the detention and
questioning of suspects. It provides for the right to legal advice and
representation, the right to silence, and the right to be treated humanely. It also
establishes safeguards to prevent the use of unfair or unreliable evidence, such
as the exclusion of evidence obtained through torture or oppressive conduct. In
addition, PACE regulates the gathering and presentation of evidence in criminal
proceedings. It sets out the rules for the admissibility of evidence, the
procedures for the handling and storage of evidence, and the requirements for
the disclosure of evidence to the defense.
Overall, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 is a crucial piece of
legislation that ensures the fair and proper conduct of criminal investigations
and proceedings in the United Kingdom.

REFERENCE
1. www.dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/English
2. www.nidirect.gov.uk
3. Ethical Justice: Applied issues for criminal justice students and professionals
by Stan Crowder and Brent Turvey
4. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
5. Zander 2005
6. www.college.police.uk
7. Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984
8. Diffusion: the UCLan Journal of Undergraduate Research Volume 5 Issue 2
(December 2012)