A Critique of the Deficiencies in the Regulation of Contemporary Police Powers of Detention and Questioning in England and Wales

Abstract

The article explores the problems associated with the regulation of police powers of detention and questioning as prescribed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The police powers of detention and questioning are analysed holistically with reference to the role of the custody officer as gatekeeper, the detention reviews, the treatment and rights of detainees, and the investigative interviewing process. Whilst the fundamental purpose of police powers of detention and questioning is to investigate crime, it is argued that the deficiency in their regulation is a conceptual failure to realise that the process of police investigation militates against objective regulation. The authors argue that PACE is too reliant on self-regulation of police observation and supervision of the rules and a redefinition of the regulation of investigative powers is missing.

Analysing Provisional Charges in the Mauritian Criminal Justice System

“…In a research paper titled "Disproportionate and Discriminatory: Reviewing the Evidence on Police Stop and Search," Bowling and Philips observed that the disproportionate use of police powers negatively impacts the law-abiding population, leading to a loss of public support for and de-legitimization of the police (Bowling, 2007). Mylonaki and Burton discussed the effectiveness of PACE in the British system, arguing that "PACE is too reliant on self-regulation of police observation and supervision of the rules and lacks a redefinition of the regulation of investigative powers" (Mylonaki & Burton, 2010). However, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) has not always had the desired effect on police operations.…”

Extending and professionalising the role of the appropriate adult

“…Since its creation over 25 years ago, the role of the appropriate adult has received relatively little attention from policymakers and academics. This stands in contrast to the extensive and sustained discussion that has been devoted to other parties who may be present during the detention and questioning of suspects, such as the custody officer (see, for example, McConville et al 1991, Choongh 1997, Mylonaki and Burton 2010, interviewing officers (see, for example, 2010, Kassin 2010, Walsh andBull 2010) and the legal adviser (see, for example, Sanders et al 1989, Brown et al 1992, Pattenden and Skinns 2010, Skinns 2011. This dearth of interest is surprising and of concern because of the vulnerability of juvenile and mentally disordered suspects and the potential impact that an appropriate adult can have on their detention and questioning, and thus on the outcome of any legal case in which they are involved.…”