"Caution": Is there any difference?

I have seem to have caused quite a commotion...

transmanche said:

OK. So why is that? And as it's obviously not an arrest by a Constable, what kind of arrest is it?

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, I genuinely want to understand the logic!

Click to expand...

Why is what?

An any person arrest exists to allow 'any person' to legally arrest another for a serious offence. Restrictions are in place to stop 'any person' from arresting another for less serious matters. One condition being that you MUST witness the offence taking place, yourself, whereas the Police would arrest on suspicion of the offence happening. A member of the public cannot arrest a person on suspicion.

An arrest under the RoRA is different legislation and isn't an any person arrest. As it's specific for a refusal of name and address after a person fails to produce a ticket, suspicion doesn't come in to the equation as it's a fact, otherwise the need to detain/arrest wouldn't have been effected.

hope this makes sense.

transmanche said:

Unfortunately on both occasions you haven't actually addressed the points I raised in post #8 - the effect of implied repeal on RoRA s5.2 by SOCPAs restriction on the power of a non-Constable to make an arrest (i.e. only for an indictable offence and if other conditions were met).

Click to expand...

For implied repeal to apply there has to be a direct conflict between the provisions.

Section 24A of SOCPA creates a power of arrest by non-constables for indictable offences, however it contains no provision to prohibit any other powers of arrest that may exist on the statute book to indictable offences, nor does it create any offences around detaining someone outwith the powers set down. As RoRA s5.2 does not apply to indictable offences there is clearly no direct conflict. It is perfectly in order for two statutes to provide similar but non overlapping powers in this way.

Furthermore S25 and Schedule 7 then go on to specifically repeal a long list of other powers of arrest including S17 of RoRA 1842, but significantly omits to repeal RoRA s5.2, from which I must conclude that the intention was that s5.2 remains on the statute book.

Given the above and in the absence of any judgment from a court of record to support your view I have to conclude that at this time s5.2 continues to be in force force, and that it was the intent of Parliament that this be the case.

Good luck trying to convince an appeal court otherwise....

michael769 said:

Section 24A of SOCPA creates a power of arrest by non-constables for indictable offences

Click to expand...

My understanding is that it restricts the pre-existing powers of arrest by non-Constables.

As well as specific statutory powers of arrest for non-Constables, there always has been a common law power of arrest by non-Constables (what's commonly known as a 'Citizen's Arrest'). SOCPA seeks to codify all of this and restrict the power of arrest by non-Constables.

I see no such restriction in the statute, in the sense you used it of preventing other powers of arrest existing.

The rather large list of repeals removed a load of existing powers of arrest and that is, in a manner of speaking, a restriction on existing powers of arrest, but it is a restriction limited in scope to those listed.

It is perhaps also worth noting that RoRA s5.2 is a power of detention not a power of arrest, which may explain why it was omitted.

michael769 said:

I see no such restriction in the statute, in the sense you used it of preventing other powers of arrest existing.

Click to expand...

But you see no permission either... so it's a matter of interpretation.

transmanche said:

... so it's a matter of interpretation.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I've told you that there is a strict procedure in statutory interpretation, and that, as a consequence, we can be certain that the power of detention remains as enacted.

[sense of head hitting wall]

DaveNewcastle said:

Yes, and I've told you that there is a strict procedure in statutory interpretation, and that, as a consequence, we can be certain that the power of detention remains as enacted.

[sense of head hitting wall]

Click to expand...

In your opinion...

You haven't actually addressed any of the issues I raised. Merely telling me that you're right... because you are. Which doesn't help very much.

transmanche said:

But you see no permission either... so it's a matter of interpretation.

Click to expand...

The permission is set out in S5.2 RoRA.

People say that I have a lot of patience. But

transmanche said:

In your opinion...

You haven't actually addressed any of the issues . . . . .

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I'm giving up trying. There seems to be enough in this thread to explain the situation which prevails adequately, and we now seem to be going in circles.

Good luck with your theories.

This is just going around in circles.

transmanche said:

My understanding is that it restricts the pre-existing powers of arrest by non-Constables.

As well as specific statutory powers of arrest for non-Constables, there always has been a common law power of arrest by non-Constables (what's commonly known as a 'Citizen's Arrest'). SOCPA seeks to codify all of this and restrict the power of arrest by non-Constables.

Click to expand...

Sorry to dig up this thread from so long ago, but I think I've found what was confusing you.

The power to effect a citizen's arrest, pre-SOCPA, was not common law but actually codified in PACE 1984 as enacted.

SOCPA rewrote PACE powers of arrest for constables (s24) and for any person (s24a). It confined itself to doing so for PACE powers and does not affect powers of arrest such as RoRA, or the common law power to arrest someone to prevent a breach of the peace. SOCPA does not conflict with any of these other powers - it only affects powers it specifically mentions.

I understand that policemen are currently trained in more than one power of arrest, and specifically taught that they need to give a SOCPA justification ("to prevent harm", "to enable a prompt and effective investigation", "to protect public decency", etc) for PACE s24 arrests, but not for arrests such as those to prevent breaches of the peace. I'd assume that BTP officers are taught that they can use RoRA arrests without a SOCPA justification.