Stoppoed by CPO
Pissed off of nottingham | 07.08.2008 20:25
So there I was, walking theough Mapperley Park having just finished work on somebodys garden. The person was working for had given me some stuff they were throwing out. I was dressed in the sort of attire you would expect to see a landscape gardener wearing. community protection officers stopped me and asked me where I had got the handfull of second hand records from (obviously top of the list for house burglers in Nottingham). I told them the full story, and took them back to house i had got them from, however i Had refused to give my details, the house owner confirmed all I had told them (whilst shaking his head in disbelief at the CPO's), they still wanted my details.
I repeatedly asked under which law they required i give them me details, eventually after some confusion they came up with section 60. They told me that they would have to detain me!? for half an hour until the poilce got there. Because i have a dog, and he had been home on his own for 6 hours, I relented, and gave up my details at the point they went to call for back up from the police. the same was repeated when they asked for my date of birth. If my housemate had not had been on hoilday (joint owner of dog) I would have taken this to it's conclusion and stood my ground.
I am not sure on CPO's and what your rights are when they intrude on your civil liberties, and pick on a working class person in a middle class area criminalising her/him (had I have been waering a suit and carrying records......!)
any tips?
I repeatedly asked under which law they required i give them me details, eventually after some confusion they came up with section 60. They told me that they would have to detain me!? for half an hour until the poilce got there. Because i have a dog, and he had been home on his own for 6 hours, I relented, and gave up my details at the point they went to call for back up from the police. the same was repeated when they asked for my date of birth. If my housemate had not had been on hoilday (joint owner of dog) I would have taken this to it's conclusion and stood my ground.
I am not sure on CPO's and what your rights are when they intrude on your civil liberties, and pick on a working class person in a middle class area criminalising her/him (had I have been waering a suit and carrying records......!)
any tips?
Pissed off of nottingham
Additions
PCSO powers
08.08.2008 21:57
PCSOs have powers designated by local Chief Constables. Here is a matrix of powers designated for each force (it was from 2007 but unlikely to have changed much)
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/community-policing/PCSOs_Audit_Table_May_2007_1.pdf?view=Binary
Notts PCSOs appear to have been given the power to require names and addresses when they think you have committed a relevant crime
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8212
The link to the PRA above is to the original one ie unamended, here is the link to the legislation that introduced the power to require a name and address
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_27
So in your case I don't see how they could have argued that they thought you had committed a crime so had no power to require your name and address. Certainly a complaint is justified, maybe even an action for unlawful detention?
If you refuse to give your name and address and they have cause then it is an offence and you can be fined. My thoughts are therefore at the very least they should be prepared to tell you what crime they think you've committed, if they refuse I think you're entitled to conclude that they're winging it.
And its only a 'relevant offence too', from PRA sch 4 again
'(6) In this paragraph “relevant offence”, in relation to a person to whom this paragraph applies, means any offence which is—
(a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to that person; or
(b) an offence the commission of which appears to that person to have caused—
(i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or
(ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person’s property;
but a designation applying this paragraph to any person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the designation.'
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/community-policing/PCSOs_Audit_Table_May_2007_1.pdf?view=Binary Notts PCSOs appear to have been given the power to require names and addresses when they think you have committed a relevant crime
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8212 The link to the PRA above is to the original one ie unamended, here is the link to the legislation that introduced the power to require a name and address
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_27 So in your case I don't see how they could have argued that they thought you had committed a crime so had no power to require your name and address. Certainly a complaint is justified, maybe even an action for unlawful detention?
If you refuse to give your name and address and they have cause then it is an offence and you can be fined. My thoughts are therefore at the very least they should be prepared to tell you what crime they think you've committed, if they refuse I think you're entitled to conclude that they're winging it.
And its only a 'relevant offence too', from PRA sch 4 again
'(6) In this paragraph “relevant offence”, in relation to a person to whom this paragraph applies, means any offence which is—
(a) a relevant fixed penalty offence for the purposes of the application of paragraph 1 to that person; or
(b) an offence the commission of which appears to that person to have caused—
(i) injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or
(ii) the loss of, or any damage to, any other person’s property;
but a designation applying this paragraph to any person may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence by virtue of paragraph (b) unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the designation.'
Andy
Comments
Display the following 12 comments