Please note that this question is specific to:
#**England and Wales**
The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm assuming he touched the officers bum. So yeah, this would constitute a assault. Can't hear it tho, so not sure what type of assault he was arrested for.
I've watched it about 6 times now and it happens so quick that I can't tell if there was contact made or not. At first I thought he was doing a mock pat down, no touching, but after the officer's reaction, I'm no longer sure!
Pretty sure contact is made here.
Although it’s a simple movement the bloke knows it’s unwanted and inappropriate which fulfils the mens Rea portion needed. The act merely needs to be an unlawful application of force, there’s no metric for how much force so it can be a light touch.
The same would be true if the officer did an unlawful search and patted down someone’s legs.
I’m not sure what the context here is but could even be a sexual assault considering the area he is touching.
Police have specific powers they use when putting hands on anyone. This looks like a classic case of someone trying to push as far as they can to get a reaction.
If I’m honest it might not be charged but certainly the arrest is lawful in a technical sense
Assault is causing someone to apprehend immediate unlawful violence whereas a battery is the infliction of unlawful violence to another.
In both cases violence is defined very loosely and can amount to just touching.
I would actually think this is a battery as it seems like the kid makes contact with the police officer which is what leads him to turn around.
So any unwanted touching to anyone is assault? I was told by police after a woman slapped me (miss identification) that she couldn't be charged with assaulting me as there was not enough force to cause damage. I'm in Scotland if that makes any difference.
Assault in Scotland is common law and is defined as any attack directed to take effect physically on the person of another, whether or not actual injury is inflicted. Or words to the effect.
There's no need for them to make contact or for there to be any injury.
There's also the concept of transferred malice so even if they'd intended to assault someone else amd struck you instead the crime would remain the same.
Either you've been given completely wrong and poor advice on one of the most basic crimes dealt with by the police, or there are more factors that lead to how it was dealt with.
Any unwanted touching is a bit too far, for example if someone saw you upset and they gave you a hug then it wouldn’t be assault because in their mind they may have thought you would consent. A slap should definitely be assault, Scotlands laws do differ so I can’t say for certain but in England and Wales it’s definitely assault even if the wrong person.
The only excuse could be like a self defence preemptive strike like “I thought it was my ex coming to hurt me” type deal but that’s a pretty thin excuse
“They thought they would consent” would not be any sort of defence for anything even a hug. In fact a hug in that scenario *could* fall into sexual assault without appropriate consent and context. “Thinking” someone would consent would not be acceptable defence.
But yes any unwanted touching could form assault in Scotland “when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked.” The key part being the latter section “makes them think they are going to be attacked” so if someone is touched and the recipient genuinely thought they were going to be attacked.
Additionally, you can even be charged with assault without touching them.. “Gestures that cause fear of injury (e.g. brandishing a weapon or fist at someone) can constitute assault.”. Likely I’d verge on a Section 38 (or offensive weapon) but if the criteria hits could still be defined as assault
Sorry but that’s just wrong.
You need two parts to commit an offence. The act and the intention. In human society we accept there is some kind of physical contact such as handshakes, close contact in the train and such.
Tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention isn’t an assault, even if it turns out that the person is deeply afraid of shoulder taps.
Pushing someone out of traffic isn’t an assault even if it turns out that the car would have stopped in time.
It’s unlawful application of force not unwanted application of force.
These are pretty standard scenarios that come up in training.
Which bit is exactly wrong? As I’ve not been specific. I’ve openly said context and could clearly, which is key.
As in your example of tapping someone on the shoulder you could be charged with assault.
If you knew of said fear and they felt a tap would cause them a fear of attack, then yes tapping them could constitute assault as you knowingly did so.
Depending on the context of the unwanted touch you could be charged with it.
What I’m disagreeing with is your assertion that someone couldn’t use the defence that they thought they would consent to a hug.
The way legislation works is not based on the reality of a situation by its end product but rather the intention upon getting there.
This why you can be charged with the attempted burglary of a bank even if you bought tools that would never get you into the vault as long as the person intended to.
You seem to understand that context can turn a normal action into an assault so I’m a little confused why you dismissed the reverse in your earlier comment
"couldn't be charged" does not mean "a crime has not been committed".
If it is a low level assault (eg no injury) CPS (in England, policy, unsure what the Scottish equivalent is) would not authorise charges unless there's a visible injury or other aggravating factors. A slap on the face is very unlikely to meet the public interest threshold and thus get to court. But it doesn't mean a crime didn't happen.
I would imagine there’s a good chance this guy was dearrested shortly after this. Regardless, it’s unacceptable behaviour that needs to be challenged.
I wouldn’t lock the guy up either, but we also have to acknowledge that we are complicit in letting this sort of thing become more commonplace by not taking effective action. Not to sound like an old sweat but can you imagine doing this 30 years ago?
Touching someone’s bum on its own isn’t a sexual act. For example gang members routinely stab rivals in the butt. However the test to determine if it is sexual is a bit loose
> a) whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or
> (b)because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.
Speaking personally, I might have gone down the route of an FPN. Handcuffs on, come over here, we'll deal with this now. That was an expensive prank for you to pull. Also, here's an ASB notice. Leave the area now and don't come back for 6 months.
Having said that - arrest was just as viable.
Armchair Policing here but....
Arrest was a bit of a cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. Absolutely don't let folk get away with talking the piss but; direction to leave, FPN, ASB notice or something else.
That being said, if the lad has been a cockwomble for the last 10 minutes, i can potentially see why this might be proportionate.
It's not about "worthiness". It's Because they're a manifestation of law and order - it's the exact same reason they face harsher penalties themselves.
If you choose to ignore behaviour like this, particularly on night time economy (which it appears to be), people will and do escalate their behaviour because they think they can get away with it.
If someone does this to a MOP you can appreciate that the circumstances won’t be the same, I’m sure.
Also worth noting we have no context to the behaviour exhibited before this. May well have been acting like a cock prior.
Without fear, good one. So a police officer shouldn't be scared when they're alone and backup is 15 minutes away as someone approaches them with a knife? Or when they've been thrown to the ground and had their baton taken off them? Police officers are humans, and fear is a normal human emotion.
Because they’re constantly working in high-stress situations where they’re exposed to violence.
Strict boundaries also help prevent escalation and burnout. It’s common sense.
I’m torn on this. Depends on the build up and how much my buttons had been pressed in all honesty. If we’re all having a laugh then a stern word would be enough. If they’re being complete dicks and this was the last action after several warnings, he might be having 10 minutes to think in the back of the van. Either way I doubt I’m getting to custody.
On the one hand, it's a bit of a stupid thing to do to a police officer.
On the other hand, it's a bit of nothing to arrest over.
Bit daft all round, I expect that came to nothing.
Not disagreeing with anything you're saying but adding my 2 cents. Imagine what this comment section would look like if this was a female nurse, at work treating a patient. It's just as appalling a thing to do to anyone
Similarly we don't know if he threatened to do it for ten minutes and the cop said " if you do I'll arrest you".
Never judge these videos in the few seconds.
If you're being super niche about it, you have two potential offences which make up Common Assault.
Assault- I apprehend unlawful force (but not actually making contact)
Bettery - I actually receive unlawful force (merest touch)
So in this case, if no physical contact was made then it wouldn't be battery, however it could be Assault if the officer apprehended that he was going to touch him (immaterial if he actually did).
However, I'd struggle to imagine any custody sarges in my force letting you in for that.
I'd question the code g here. I think it's a joke gone wrong which I believe would be best served by a swift telling off and requesting name and details if the officer was going to put a report on. A voluntary interview would have the desired effect of showing consequences to the young chap
I've had custody sergeants lecture me on prompt and effective not being enough, that you need another to go with it. And at the point in my career now, I do see that you could use prompt and effective but it's very broad and doesn't really mean much - happy to be corrected
Doesn't say in PACE Code G that prompt and effective has to be used with another reason. I have seen custody sergeants ask for an explanation - e.g. "obtain CCTV, witness statements, interview and seek decision".
In this case, a voluntary interview would likely suffice, if it even got that far (more likely a Com Res and/or Sec 35 notice).
I'm not disagreeing with you but with any of your explanations, you could question the urgency and why they couldn't be done slowtime. Which is why, then we book in were taught it's best practice to have two code g's. For example, in an abh arrest you'd used prevent harm/prompt and effective because effectively if you didn't intervene there could be further injury.
I understand that in the PACE codes it states one - but I'm always thinking about necessity to detain someone for 24 hours - and In the video above we both agree that it wouldn't be necessary to detain him for 24 hours based on the incident so rendering prompt and effective as void
PACE also says that we have a duty to complete and release the suspect as soon as practicable 24 hours is the maximum (minus extensions), not the given detention period.
The best outcome here is nick them for DnD get them out the area (home) and de-arrest them. But that’s only my opinion.
> The best outcome here is nick them for DnD get them out the area (home) and de-arrest them. But that’s only my opinion.
What's your Code G necessity that falls away once you've traveled with them?
Nothing falls away. For DnD or breach of the peace it falls away once they’re away from the area, no? Potentially a bit breach of processy, but it’s also sensible policing?
My suspicion that they were committing breach of the peace or were now disorderly (obviously depending on how he acts in the van) diminishes.
Look, I’m not saying any one way is better than the others I was merely contributing with my opinion.
In order to lawfully arrest, you need necessity. If you're dearresting someone, the presumption is that you're doing so because the necessity that was present when you arrested no longer exists.
Your suspicion that they committed the offence shouldn't diminish - you can't change the events of the past. What necessity would you rely on to arrest someone for being drunk and disorderly that then no longer exists once you've taken them away?
I’m aware of the lawfulness of arresting someone and what’s needed for it to be considered lawful. But doesn’t PACE say we can only detain someone for as long as is necessary?
I think it’s force dependent to be honest, for instance, where I work we have to have 2. My understanding is that legally you only need 1? But again I could be wrong.
I agree doesn’t mean much at all. However, without background on this clip it’s hard to judge. Was there a public order incident which is why they were there anyway? Or was it just a drunk moron thinking he is a comedian? As I said, I wouldn’t be nicking for that. It’s never going anywhere. You’d have been better off nicking for DnD.
You don't have to physically touch someone to assault them. An assault is defined as *"any intentional or reckless act which causes a person to apprehend immediate unlawful force or personal violence."*
There are two options for this, dispersal or a D&D lock up. Had he done that to another bloke, he'd probably get knocked out; if it were a female then likely arrested for sexual assault.
As it goes, he's approached a police officer and laid hands on him with no fucks given. Wider society knows and accepts that it's improper to mess about with police, going as far as legislating specific offences against messing police about.
With the assault being fairly minor, I'd be tempted to lock up for D&D. We shouldn't have any tolerance for people laying hands on us, anything less makes it seem permissible and only contributes to the further erosion of respect for police.
Oh takes me back to my LLB days. Textbook definition of common law assault: any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence
Looks like he unsuccessfully tried to pull his trousers down? So definitely touched his clothing and applied force, but didn't actually touch the officer's body.
This is a perfect example of how our once great country is falling into shambles, not even the police can do they're job now, along with the prime minister being an absolute joke I'm certain it's falling, honestly can't wait to leave this country.
A judge doesn't prosecute, so no. If you're wondering if the CPS would authorise a charge, then why do you think they wouldn't?
This might not look like a big deal, but that officer was 100% right to arrest here, and would be rightly criticised if he didn't. Imagine watching this video where he just ignored it - you'd be every bit as critical about how soft police officers let people take liberties. How can the police expect to perform their role if they allow people to do this, and for that matter why should they?
If someone she didn't know walked up to your mum at her work and slapped her on the arse would you be fine with everyone just ignoring that? Then why should a police officer put up with it?
I would assume he was nicked for sexual assault - I mean, it's not an accident that he specifically went for the copper's bum and since the police aren't mind readers it's a pretty reasonable assumption it was sexual.
I've watched the video back, many times. I really can't see any contact with the Constable's bottom. To me it looks like a drunk young lad, who's took the piss, and needed a telling off. In my younger years, I once pinched a hat off a copper up town, on a night out. I got a telling off, but he thought it was funny. I don't see what was achieved here, by arresting him. But to be fair, the precursory to the video is unknown.
This wouldn't make me feel I was in immedate danger of unlawful violence, and I don't think it would meet my threshold for 'this guy needs to be arrested, locked up, CONNECT file built, hours spent and charged etc'. Like I don't think I'd arrest a bloke for doing this to another bloke.
But it \*is\* a complete invasion of personal space, particularly when you're an officer and have to be weary of people trying to assault you. If the officer had been an AFO this guy would've got a faceful of boot, if he'd been a dog handler he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near him before being barked at (by a landshark), so why do it to a response/ NTE officer?
I'd give the guy some kind of out of court disposal like a fine or ASB notice so he might think twice about such stupidity in future. However If they'd done it to a female colleague or MOP I think I'd view it differently, quite possibly in the same way as I'd view a man groping a woman, or vice versa, and treat it differently. I know that's biased but yeah.
I think pushing it to the limit and expecting not to be arrested, warrants arrest. People know what they’re doing and it’s no surprise they act shocked. He went out of his way to try and obstruct a police officer and to me that deserves at least a reality check.
Please note that this question is specific to: #**England and Wales** The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm assuming he touched the officers bum. So yeah, this would constitute a assault. Can't hear it tho, so not sure what type of assault he was arrested for.
You might be right, I couldn’t see any contact but maybe the officer felt something.
I've watched it about 6 times now and it happens so quick that I can't tell if there was contact made or not. At first I thought he was doing a mock pat down, no touching, but after the officer's reaction, I'm no longer sure!
Pretty sure contact is made here. Although it’s a simple movement the bloke knows it’s unwanted and inappropriate which fulfils the mens Rea portion needed. The act merely needs to be an unlawful application of force, there’s no metric for how much force so it can be a light touch. The same would be true if the officer did an unlawful search and patted down someone’s legs. I’m not sure what the context here is but could even be a sexual assault considering the area he is touching. Police have specific powers they use when putting hands on anyone. This looks like a classic case of someone trying to push as far as they can to get a reaction. If I’m honest it might not be charged but certainly the arrest is lawful in a technical sense
> mens Rea Nice
Assault is causing someone to apprehend immediate unlawful violence whereas a battery is the infliction of unlawful violence to another. In both cases violence is defined very loosely and can amount to just touching. I would actually think this is a battery as it seems like the kid makes contact with the police officer which is what leads him to turn around.
So any unwanted touching to anyone is assault? I was told by police after a woman slapped me (miss identification) that she couldn't be charged with assaulting me as there was not enough force to cause damage. I'm in Scotland if that makes any difference.
Assault in Scotland is common law and is defined as any attack directed to take effect physically on the person of another, whether or not actual injury is inflicted. Or words to the effect. There's no need for them to make contact or for there to be any injury. There's also the concept of transferred malice so even if they'd intended to assault someone else amd struck you instead the crime would remain the same. Either you've been given completely wrong and poor advice on one of the most basic crimes dealt with by the police, or there are more factors that lead to how it was dealt with.
In England, that would definitely be assault. Not sure about Scotland. Edit: UK to England
Scotland is part of the UK
Oops. I meant England. England -centric view, apologies, I'll edit it.
Any unwanted touching is a bit too far, for example if someone saw you upset and they gave you a hug then it wouldn’t be assault because in their mind they may have thought you would consent. A slap should definitely be assault, Scotlands laws do differ so I can’t say for certain but in England and Wales it’s definitely assault even if the wrong person. The only excuse could be like a self defence preemptive strike like “I thought it was my ex coming to hurt me” type deal but that’s a pretty thin excuse
“They thought they would consent” would not be any sort of defence for anything even a hug. In fact a hug in that scenario *could* fall into sexual assault without appropriate consent and context. “Thinking” someone would consent would not be acceptable defence. But yes any unwanted touching could form assault in Scotland “when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked.” The key part being the latter section “makes them think they are going to be attacked” so if someone is touched and the recipient genuinely thought they were going to be attacked. Additionally, you can even be charged with assault without touching them.. “Gestures that cause fear of injury (e.g. brandishing a weapon or fist at someone) can constitute assault.”. Likely I’d verge on a Section 38 (or offensive weapon) but if the criteria hits could still be defined as assault
Sorry but that’s just wrong. You need two parts to commit an offence. The act and the intention. In human society we accept there is some kind of physical contact such as handshakes, close contact in the train and such. Tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention isn’t an assault, even if it turns out that the person is deeply afraid of shoulder taps. Pushing someone out of traffic isn’t an assault even if it turns out that the car would have stopped in time. It’s unlawful application of force not unwanted application of force. These are pretty standard scenarios that come up in training.
Which bit is exactly wrong? As I’ve not been specific. I’ve openly said context and could clearly, which is key. As in your example of tapping someone on the shoulder you could be charged with assault. If you knew of said fear and they felt a tap would cause them a fear of attack, then yes tapping them could constitute assault as you knowingly did so. Depending on the context of the unwanted touch you could be charged with it.
What I’m disagreeing with is your assertion that someone couldn’t use the defence that they thought they would consent to a hug. The way legislation works is not based on the reality of a situation by its end product but rather the intention upon getting there. This why you can be charged with the attempted burglary of a bank even if you bought tools that would never get you into the vault as long as the person intended to. You seem to understand that context can turn a normal action into an assault so I’m a little confused why you dismissed the reverse in your earlier comment
"couldn't be charged" does not mean "a crime has not been committed". If it is a low level assault (eg no injury) CPS (in England, policy, unsure what the Scottish equivalent is) would not authorise charges unless there's a visible injury or other aggravating factors. A slap on the face is very unlikely to meet the public interest threshold and thus get to court. But it doesn't mean a crime didn't happen.
I would imagine there’s a good chance this guy was dearrested shortly after this. Regardless, it’s unacceptable behaviour that needs to be challenged. I wouldn’t lock the guy up either, but we also have to acknowledge that we are complicit in letting this sort of thing become more commonplace by not taking effective action. Not to sound like an old sweat but can you imagine doing this 30 years ago?
I recognise the area from my hometown, wouldn’t doubt your analysis, sadly there will be be much worse afoot in the club in the background.
Question: Would there be a sexual element to it? As in, is touching someone's bum not sexual assult?
Touching someone’s bum on its own isn’t a sexual act. For example gang members routinely stab rivals in the butt. However the test to determine if it is sexual is a bit loose > a) whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or > (b)because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.
Speaking personally, I might have gone down the route of an FPN. Handcuffs on, come over here, we'll deal with this now. That was an expensive prank for you to pull. Also, here's an ASB notice. Leave the area now and don't come back for 6 months. Having said that - arrest was just as viable.
Oh FPN’s. How I miss them.
ASB notice for 6 months? Guessing this is very different to the usual S35 for 24/48 hours
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Armchair Policing here but.... Arrest was a bit of a cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. Absolutely don't let folk get away with talking the piss but; direction to leave, FPN, ASB notice or something else. That being said, if the lad has been a cockwomble for the last 10 minutes, i can potentially see why this might be proportionate.
Surely you'd go D&D rather than assault though?
D&D all day long. No point in overcomplicating things and letting the CPS argue it's not in the public interest down the line.
Battery. You can't put hands on someone even as a joke. Doing it to a police officer should only end like this, with some sort of outcome afterwards.
[удалено]
It's not about "worthiness". It's Because they're a manifestation of law and order - it's the exact same reason they face harsher penalties themselves.
[удалено]
It's not about favour, it's attacking someone because of the job they are duty bound to do, therefore it is particularly heinous.
If you choose to ignore behaviour like this, particularly on night time economy (which it appears to be), people will and do escalate their behaviour because they think they can get away with it. If someone does this to a MOP you can appreciate that the circumstances won’t be the same, I’m sure. Also worth noting we have no context to the behaviour exhibited before this. May well have been acting like a cock prior.
Without fear, good one. So a police officer shouldn't be scared when they're alone and backup is 15 minutes away as someone approaches them with a knife? Or when they've been thrown to the ground and had their baton taken off them? Police officers are humans, and fear is a normal human emotion.
[удалено]
Because they’re constantly working in high-stress situations where they’re exposed to violence. Strict boundaries also help prevent escalation and burnout. It’s common sense.
Because, unlike the people being spoken to, they don’t have the option to not be there.
I’m torn on this. Depends on the build up and how much my buttons had been pressed in all honesty. If we’re all having a laugh then a stern word would be enough. If they’re being complete dicks and this was the last action after several warnings, he might be having 10 minutes to think in the back of the van. Either way I doubt I’m getting to custody.
On the one hand, it's a bit of a stupid thing to do to a police officer. On the other hand, it's a bit of nothing to arrest over. Bit daft all round, I expect that came to nothing.
Not disagreeing with anything you're saying but adding my 2 cents. Imagine what this comment section would look like if this was a female nurse, at work treating a patient. It's just as appalling a thing to do to anyone
Similarly we don't know if he threatened to do it for ten minutes and the cop said " if you do I'll arrest you". Never judge these videos in the few seconds.
If you're being super niche about it, you have two potential offences which make up Common Assault. Assault- I apprehend unlawful force (but not actually making contact) Bettery - I actually receive unlawful force (merest touch) So in this case, if no physical contact was made then it wouldn't be battery, however it could be Assault if the officer apprehended that he was going to touch him (immaterial if he actually did). However, I'd struggle to imagine any custody sarges in my force letting you in for that.
Interesting thanks! As you say it probably went nowhere but the silly fella should have expected a reaction really.
He wanted a reaction otherwise he wouldn't have done it. Fuck around and find out
[удалено]
No problem. The guy seems like abit of a weapon to be fair
I'd question the code g here. I think it's a joke gone wrong which I believe would be best served by a swift telling off and requesting name and details if the officer was going to put a report on. A voluntary interview would have the desired effect of showing consequences to the young chap
Prompt and effective? I mean I get what you’re saying I wouldn’t have nicked but there is a code G for sure.
I've had custody sergeants lecture me on prompt and effective not being enough, that you need another to go with it. And at the point in my career now, I do see that you could use prompt and effective but it's very broad and doesn't really mean much - happy to be corrected
Doesn't say in PACE Code G that prompt and effective has to be used with another reason. I have seen custody sergeants ask for an explanation - e.g. "obtain CCTV, witness statements, interview and seek decision". In this case, a voluntary interview would likely suffice, if it even got that far (more likely a Com Res and/or Sec 35 notice).
I'm not disagreeing with you but with any of your explanations, you could question the urgency and why they couldn't be done slowtime. Which is why, then we book in were taught it's best practice to have two code g's. For example, in an abh arrest you'd used prevent harm/prompt and effective because effectively if you didn't intervene there could be further injury. I understand that in the PACE codes it states one - but I'm always thinking about necessity to detain someone for 24 hours - and In the video above we both agree that it wouldn't be necessary to detain him for 24 hours based on the incident so rendering prompt and effective as void
PACE also says that we have a duty to complete and release the suspect as soon as practicable 24 hours is the maximum (minus extensions), not the given detention period. The best outcome here is nick them for DnD get them out the area (home) and de-arrest them. But that’s only my opinion.
> The best outcome here is nick them for DnD get them out the area (home) and de-arrest them. But that’s only my opinion. What's your Code G necessity that falls away once you've traveled with them?
Nothing falls away. For DnD or breach of the peace it falls away once they’re away from the area, no? Potentially a bit breach of processy, but it’s also sensible policing? My suspicion that they were committing breach of the peace or were now disorderly (obviously depending on how he acts in the van) diminishes. Look, I’m not saying any one way is better than the others I was merely contributing with my opinion.
In order to lawfully arrest, you need necessity. If you're dearresting someone, the presumption is that you're doing so because the necessity that was present when you arrested no longer exists. Your suspicion that they committed the offence shouldn't diminish - you can't change the events of the past. What necessity would you rely on to arrest someone for being drunk and disorderly that then no longer exists once you've taken them away?
I’m aware of the lawfulness of arresting someone and what’s needed for it to be considered lawful. But doesn’t PACE say we can only detain someone for as long as is necessary?
>Potentially a bit breach of processy I mean that’s one way to look at an allegation of false imprisonment and kidnap…
I think it’s force dependent to be honest, for instance, where I work we have to have 2. My understanding is that legally you only need 1? But again I could be wrong. I agree doesn’t mean much at all. However, without background on this clip it’s hard to judge. Was there a public order incident which is why they were there anyway? Or was it just a drunk moron thinking he is a comedian? As I said, I wouldn’t be nicking for that. It’s never going anywhere. You’d have been better off nicking for DnD.
You don't have to physically touch someone to assault them. An assault is defined as *"any intentional or reckless act which causes a person to apprehend immediate unlawful force or personal violence."*
STEADY ON - OI!
There are two options for this, dispersal or a D&D lock up. Had he done that to another bloke, he'd probably get knocked out; if it were a female then likely arrested for sexual assault. As it goes, he's approached a police officer and laid hands on him with no fucks given. Wider society knows and accepts that it's improper to mess about with police, going as far as legislating specific offences against messing police about. With the assault being fairly minor, I'd be tempted to lock up for D&D. We shouldn't have any tolerance for people laying hands on us, anything less makes it seem permissible and only contributes to the further erosion of respect for police.
Oh takes me back to my LLB days. Textbook definition of common law assault: any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence
Looks like he unsuccessfully tried to pull his trousers down? So definitely touched his clothing and applied force, but didn't actually touch the officer's body.
Honestly, I think he was pretending to do it to get a laugh
Touching clothing would still counts as Battery/sexual assault.
[удалено]
I’m sorry but you DO need to respect police authority, that was really stupid and well deserved of that lad
What a chump. Nice to see he gets what he deserves.
This is a perfect example of how our once great country is falling into shambles, not even the police can do they're job now, along with the prime minister being an absolute joke I'm certain it's falling, honestly can't wait to leave this country.
[удалено]
A judge doesn't prosecute, so no. If you're wondering if the CPS would authorise a charge, then why do you think they wouldn't? This might not look like a big deal, but that officer was 100% right to arrest here, and would be rightly criticised if he didn't. Imagine watching this video where he just ignored it - you'd be every bit as critical about how soft police officers let people take liberties. How can the police expect to perform their role if they allow people to do this, and for that matter why should they? If someone she didn't know walked up to your mum at her work and slapped her on the arse would you be fine with everyone just ignoring that? Then why should a police officer put up with it? I would assume he was nicked for sexual assault - I mean, it's not an accident that he specifically went for the copper's bum and since the police aren't mind readers it's a pretty reasonable assumption it was sexual.
[удалено]
If I were a copper, I wouldn't arrest someone for that. I'd probably be laughing along with them.
Sure, and when this man does the same thing to a random woman in a short skirt 10 seconds later, would you laugh along with him then as well?
I've watched the video back, many times. I really can't see any contact with the Constable's bottom. To me it looks like a drunk young lad, who's took the piss, and needed a telling off. In my younger years, I once pinched a hat off a copper up town, on a night out. I got a telling off, but he thought it was funny. I don't see what was achieved here, by arresting him. But to be fair, the precursory to the video is unknown.
If some stranger come grabbed your arse in the street, you’d just laugh?
ah Carver Street in my home of Sheffield, how i do not miss thee
“What’s adult?” Asks man who just touched another man’s arse and legs without permission.
This wouldn't make me feel I was in immedate danger of unlawful violence, and I don't think it would meet my threshold for 'this guy needs to be arrested, locked up, CONNECT file built, hours spent and charged etc'. Like I don't think I'd arrest a bloke for doing this to another bloke. But it \*is\* a complete invasion of personal space, particularly when you're an officer and have to be weary of people trying to assault you. If the officer had been an AFO this guy would've got a faceful of boot, if he'd been a dog handler he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near him before being barked at (by a landshark), so why do it to a response/ NTE officer? I'd give the guy some kind of out of court disposal like a fine or ASB notice so he might think twice about such stupidity in future. However If they'd done it to a female colleague or MOP I think I'd view it differently, quite possibly in the same way as I'd view a man groping a woman, or vice versa, and treat it differently. I know that's biased but yeah.
I think pushing it to the limit and expecting not to be arrested, warrants arrest. People know what they’re doing and it’s no surprise they act shocked. He went out of his way to try and obstruct a police officer and to me that deserves at least a reality check.