A nice little section of PACE states that the Police may only hold "seized objects as long as is necessary", what this means as as soon as they decide not to prosecute or that the objects are not evidence or the CPS drops the case then it is their responsibility to return the objects to you, as soon as is possible. If they wait for you to request them then they are breaking PACE.
Recently I applied via a Part 8 claim for an injunction requiring Merseyside Police to return equipment ceased. The Police in their statement admitted that they didn't need it any more but decided to oppose the action and instead suggested that 3 months was a reasonable time to wait for the equipment. The judge disagreed.
For opposing this action Weightmans wanted cost of £3200 against me. Needless to say they didn't get it but it should have been obvious to anyone they would lose. That £3200 included £300 for a barrister and 6.5 hours of Victoria Crossley's time. In the end Caroline Ashcroft turned up in court and twigged when the Judge commented "Mr Bradley does seem to have the law on his side".
The case was further hampered by the fact that Hertfordshire Police who where subject to the same request on the same day revealed that they had attempted to return the equipment, of their own volition, but the Post office had lost it, and offered to pursue the Post Office on my behalf for the money.
Ms Ashcroft seemed to think that as Merseyside Police where a public body then they where somehow excused, but of course Hertfordshire Police is also a public body. She also seemed unaware that Section 7.12(iii) required the Police to keep track of the equipment, so they can secure it if a request for it back is put through the courts. This means that, to paraphrase Ms Victoria Crossley, "the officer who knows where it is, is off ill" is simply and indication of a breach of PACE.
Merseyside Police shouldn't pay the bill they where badly advised by their solicitors. How much money do Weightmans take every year from the Police?
Solicitors from Hell has an article on them here.
The bits of PACE.
Section 7.3 Officers must be aware of the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 59, allowing for applications to a judicial authority for the return of property seized and the subsequent duty to secure in section 60, see paragraph 7.12(iii).
Section 7.12 (iii) "setting out the effect of sections 59 to 61 covering the grounds for a person with a relevant interest in seized property to apply to a judicial authority for its return and the duty of officers to secure property in certain circumstances when an application is made."
Section 7.14 "Subject to paragraph 7.15, anything seized in accordance with the above provisions may be retained only for as long as is necessary."
Recently I applied via a Part 8 claim for an injunction requiring Merseyside Police to return equipment ceased. The Police in their statement admitted that they didn't need it any more but decided to oppose the action and instead suggested that 3 months was a reasonable time to wait for the equipment. The judge disagreed.
For opposing this action Weightmans wanted cost of £3200 against me. Needless to say they didn't get it but it should have been obvious to anyone they would lose. That £3200 included £300 for a barrister and 6.5 hours of Victoria Crossley's time. In the end Caroline Ashcroft turned up in court and twigged when the Judge commented "Mr Bradley does seem to have the law on his side".
The case was further hampered by the fact that Hertfordshire Police who where subject to the same request on the same day revealed that they had attempted to return the equipment, of their own volition, but the Post office had lost it, and offered to pursue the Post Office on my behalf for the money.
Ms Ashcroft seemed to think that as Merseyside Police where a public body then they where somehow excused, but of course Hertfordshire Police is also a public body. She also seemed unaware that Section 7.12(iii) required the Police to keep track of the equipment, so they can secure it if a request for it back is put through the courts. This means that, to paraphrase Ms Victoria Crossley, "the officer who knows where it is, is off ill" is simply and indication of a breach of PACE.
Merseyside Police shouldn't pay the bill they where badly advised by their solicitors. How much money do Weightmans take every year from the Police?
Solicitors from Hell has an article on them here.
The bits of PACE.
Section 7.3 Officers must be aware of the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 59, allowing for applications to a judicial authority for the return of property seized and the subsequent duty to secure in section 60, see paragraph 7.12(iii).
Section 7.12 (iii) "setting out the effect of sections 59 to 61 covering the grounds for a person with a relevant interest in seized property to apply to a judicial authority for its return and the duty of officers to secure property in certain circumstances when an application is made."
Section 7.14 "Subject to paragraph 7.15, anything seized in accordance with the above provisions may be retained only for as long as is necessary."
No comments:
Post a Comment