NEWS:PACE: Legal Challenge Over Detention
Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:38 PM
Just For Kids Law claims treating 17-year-olds as adults, as PACE does, is wrong and out of step with other laws that set 18 as the age of legal adulthood.
They have won permission from the High Court for a judicial review of PACE, against the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police, over the Act’s treatment of detainees aged 17.
The firm is representing a 17-year-old with no criminal record who was detained by the Met for 12 hours - and an appropriate adult was not found for him during interviews as is required for younger detainees.
He claims to have asked his mother be informed of his arrest but this did not happen. When a detainee is 16 or younger, PACE requires officers to inform a parent or guardian of their arrest.
A Met spokesman declined to comment. A Home Office spokesman said it felt PACE ensured an “appropriate level of care” for all detainees.
He said: “We believe the laws in place ensure the appropriate level of care for everyone, including 17-year-olds.
“It would be inappropriate to comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing.”
Click here to view the article
Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:52 AM
Just let us get on with policing
Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:14 PM
That said PACE and how it defines the treatment of a 17 year old has been around for many years now - isn't it a bit late to raise concerns over such a tried and tested piece of legislation?
I guess normally you might expect a 17 year old of today to be much more mature than a 17 year old, say, twenty years ago. But I actually think the opposite is the case in many instances - we live in such a nanny state nowadays and young people that age are so pampered that in some respects that they remain like over-grown kids into their twenties and beyond, let alone their late teens. In any event, they are still treated as Juveniles at 17 by the courts irrespective of PACE and normally given such wholly and ineffectual punishment that it beggars the question, does it really matter anyway? My personal view is if their interactions with the Police and then the courts was much more impactive at the outset, we probably wouldn't have so many coming back through the system time and time again.
Instead our shambolic Justice system merely breeds contempt from those caught up in it, no matter how young the offender might be. Treated with kid-gloves by the Police and shown incredible leniency by the courts, it's no wonder that the lack of fear of any real consequence is compounded. The problem is, those who concern themselves with the plight of 17 years olds in custody most likely don't reside on some deprived inner-city crime ridden estate where some wayward 17 year old yob is still old enough to behave with scant regard for the law and cause untold misery to the law abiding masses around them. And in any event, it was probably all due to ADHD anyway, that other classic excuse for poor behaviour when all else fails.
Sadly there are far too many in this country with single issue agendas, who think they know what's best for all of us; and they continually stick their snouts into such non-issues as this because I can only presume they simply don't know which cause-of-the-week to adopt next. But alas, they've obviously been keeping themselves busy - it's only taken them 26 years to latch onto this particular injustice!...
Edited by morek54, 16 November 2012 - 07:15 PM.
Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:30 PM
Then there's the fact that they can leave home at 16 but have to live on soup and pot noodles for 2 years as they aren't old enough to buy a knife.
Our age laws are a mess.
Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:39 AM
A High Court challenge could change the way 17-year-olds in England and Wales are treated after being arrested and taken into police custody
Looks like money is still being thrown at this apparently very important issue.
Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:47 PM
Lack of joined up thinking by Parliament. They raised the legal age of "childhood" to 18 a couple of years ago but didn't think to amend laws passed earlier which use lower limits.
And to think it would have taken a whole line in the new legislation to amend previous legislation... you can see why it was too much trouble.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users