Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:slwo: :slsa: :slbl: :slarr: :slcup: :slluv: :slroll: :sltee: :slcud: :sltgu: :slhat: :slex: :slhi: :slra: :slcool: :slusa: :slwot: :slsic: :slww: :slgg: :slwoot: :sldv: :sldu2: :slrnt: :slbx: :slna: :slluvv: :slhuh: :slead: :sloop: :sljo: :slsp: :slby: :slzz2: :slsm: :slch2: :slbell: :slrog: :slgw: :slchee: :slred: :slzip: :D :) :( :o :? 8) :x :P :wink: :|
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

Re: Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

by overthinker1977 » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:17 pm

JEA wrote:Oh, and I also noticed some new case law on sec 17 PACE powers that clarifies the phrase "to safe life and limb". A welfare concern or suspicion is deemed not to meet this criteria!!!!!

So if an elderly person hasn't been seen for a couple of days, can't be traced, and won't answer the door, we have no right under sec 17 to force entry!!!
I don't know owt about the other bit of legislation. I know about this one though. As long as you have grave and serious concerns over the safety of the occupant of a premesies you can still enter. Thats the difference. No longer can you simply be 'concerned for welfare'. Its right really when you think about it IMO.
As long as you can justify with reasons that made you feel the person was in serious danger you're ok.

Examples of belief of serious injury
"I heard screaming "get off me, get off me, it hurts" "
I saw a leg sticking out of the doorway at an angle that someone would be at it if they were lying on the floor and no response was coming from them when I shouted through the letter box.
There was a strong smell of gas and the occupant said they wouldn't leave. (Not sure about that one but its just an example).
Colleague attends address and shouts assistance.
(basically its the same as before but just word it differently)


Examples of concerns for safety
Visiting a house because neighbours havn't seen the elderly resident for a few days.

Umm, I think thats it actually... unless you can think of any more. I think it puts things in perspective and stops people doing daft things.

Re: Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

by JEA » Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:01 pm

I've found the sec 17 case law on PNLD on my PDA, have started a new thread for it.

http://policecommunitysupportofficer.co ... =6&t=16017

Re: Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

by JEA » Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:27 pm

Marlon wrote:
JEA wrote:Oh, and I also noticed some new case law on sec 17 PACE powers



Was that referenced on PNLD too? Might be an important one for others to read and pass on, if you can provide the reference.

Thanks.
Yes it was on PNLD, maybe I should have put this on a separate thread (don't suppose a moderator wants to move it?). I can't remember the reference number or trial name, but if you look up sec 17 it'll be the most recent case. It was on the PNLD home page this week, when you first log in, but not sure how long it will stay there.

The bones of it (off the top of my head) are a neighbour called in a domestic disturbance next door, shouting and banging etc. When the officers attended a chap answered the door saying he'd had an argument with his brother. Another male came to the door but couldn't speak English so the officers couldn't be certain that he was the brother and there wasn't a victim injured in the address. The officers asked to check the address and explained sec 17 powers. The original chap became obstructive, refusing entry (which, reading between the lines, is obviously going to make the officers more suspicious!). When the officers forced entry, they were head butted and spat at by obstructive male. He was arrested for assault police. He appealed on the grounds that sec 17 didn't apply and so the officers weren't acting in the lawful execution of their duty and he therefore had a right to forcibly resist them entry. His appeal was upheld as a concern for welfare is not deemed to be "saving life and limb"!!!!

It mentions something about what does, but I can't remember that reliably off the top of my head, so to save confusion I'll wait for someone to look it up. It does say the term "life and limb" is outdated, hinting it needs changing, so hopefully in 5 years parliament might get round to changing it! It does say that the court was sympathetic to the officers as they were in a catch 22 situation, damned if they do and damned if they don't.

This muddies the water quite a lot! Sec 17 (in my force at least) is used loads for welfare concerns, and has saved peoples lives! We need a power to gain entry on suspicion that someone may need our help, surely!

Re: Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

by Big Brother » Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:07 pm

It's a useless power imo. I mean they've not even given us the option of issuing a PND for it, and if you read the guidance on the DCSF website for it you've got to have done a hell of a lot of intervention work beforehand before you can even consider taking them to court. It's a total waste of time.

(we had a training course run by the DCSF the other week, hence why I know).

Re: Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

by Marlon » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:39 am

JEA wrote:Oh, and I also noticed some new case law on sec 17 PACE powers



Was that referenced on PNLD too? Might be an important one for others to read and pass on, if you can provide the reference.

Thanks.

Re: Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

by JEA » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:40 am

Oh, and I also noticed some new case law on sec 17 PACE powers that clarifies the phrase "to safe life and limb". A welfare concern or suspicion is deemed not to meet this criteria!!!!!

So if an elderly person hasn't been seen for a couple of days, can't be traced, and won't answer the door, we have no right under sec 17 to force entry!!!

Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009

by JEA » Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:36 am

Sorry if this has already been covered, couldn't find it on the site.

I found this while looking something up on PNLD. It came into effect on 29th Jan 2010. No one I've spoken to knew about it, so I thought I'd spread the knowledge as it looks like a powerful tool, especially for NPT's. More info on PNLD (D25007) if you want to look it up. It comes with a power of arrest without warrant, but is a summary only offence so it's not applicable under any persons power to detain under sec 24a PACE.

Section 30 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 creates an offence of
persistently possessing alcohol in a public place. Young people under
the age of 18 can be prosecuted for this offence if they are caught
with alcohol in a public place 3 or more times within a 12 month
period.
30(1) A person under the age of 18 is guilty of an offence if, without
reasonable excuse, the person is in possession of alcohol in any
relevant place on 3 or more occasions within a period of 12
consecutive months.
30(2) Relevant place, in relation to a person, means -
(a) any public place, other than excluded premises, or
(b) any place, other than a public place, to which the person has
unlawfully gained access.

Points To Prove
date and location
being a person under the age of eighteen years
had in your possession alcohol in a relevant place
on three or more different occasions which were within a period of
twelve consecutive months

With no case law yet, it doesn't say what standard of evidence is required to prove the three times. My thoughts are a PNB entry would suffice, which can be written up into a statement if needed, but it kind of leaves a lot of defences open ("the first warning 10 months ago was for alcohol free beer, and you don't have an exhibit to prove otherwise...", "someone else lied and gave my details 9 months ago, it wasn't me..." etc...)

Also, how would the first and second time be recorded to allow any officer to take action on the third... I doubt the PNC bureau would be happy with hundreds of info markers just for alcohol possession. My thought is an intel report on the local force database. But not many officers would bother to do intel checks on a kid drinking beer...

Could be a powerful tool for NPT's, but it seems a bit impractical to enforce. I'd be interested to hear how anyone else thinks it could work...

Top