Technology And Policing: Case Study
FZ1105 - Technology and Policing
Module Tutor -
Word Count: 958
Deadline: 12 February 2012
Learning Outcome: Describe current, relevant legislation, policies, procedures, codes of practice and guidelines in relation to gathering, submitting, retaining, recording and disseminating information.
Scenario: The Divisional Commander at Ashbridge Division, Hamiltonshire Police has been very concerned for some time about vehicle crime in the Boxton Heath area of the town. She asks her staff to be creative and less risk averse and to come up with ideas to catch the offenders who seem to be able to break into cars and steal property at will.
PC’s Phillipson and Cox take this as an opportunity to impress their bosses and decide to run a ‘sting’ …show more content…
The case could succeed if the judge could find evidence that the men would have stolen the goods if they had received the same information about the van from a member of the public, as in the case R v Looseley, 'R had done no more than provide L with an opportunity to break the law which he had freely taken. The trial judge was correct in finding that evidence of L 's involvement in drug culture demonstrated that he would have behaved in the same way had he been approached with a similar request by a member of the general public '5
The case could fail if the circumstances in which the evidence was gained were seen as an unfair by the judge under Section 78(1) of PACE 1984, as the men were informed of the goods without prior thoughts to steal the items, and therefore Cox would be seen as an agent provocateur. The manner in which the evidence was obtained could be seen as unfair and therefore a breach of Article 6 of The Human Rights Act 1998 and the judge would have to take this into consideration as in the case R v Sang, 'The judge heard argument as to whether he had discretion to exclude the evidence on the assumption that the activities were induced by an agent provocateur. He found he had no such discretion and was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Module Tutor -
Word Count: 958
Deadline: 12 February 2012
Learning Outcome: Describe current, relevant legislation, policies, procedures, codes of practice and guidelines in relation to gathering, submitting, retaining, recording and disseminating information.
Scenario: The Divisional Commander at Ashbridge Division, Hamiltonshire Police has been very concerned for some time about vehicle crime in the Boxton Heath area of the town. She asks her staff to be creative and less risk averse and to come up with ideas to catch the offenders who seem to be able to break into cars and steal property at will.
PC’s Phillipson and Cox take this as an opportunity to impress their bosses and decide to run a ‘sting’ …show more content…
The case could succeed if the judge could find evidence that the men would have stolen the goods if they had received the same information about the van from a member of the public, as in the case R v Looseley, 'R had done no more than provide L with an opportunity to break the law which he had freely taken. The trial judge was correct in finding that evidence of L 's involvement in drug culture demonstrated that he would have behaved in the same way had he been approached with a similar request by a member of the general public '5
The case could fail if the circumstances in which the evidence was gained were seen as an unfair by the judge under Section 78(1) of PACE 1984, as the men were informed of the goods without prior thoughts to steal the items, and therefore Cox would be seen as an agent provocateur. The manner in which the evidence was obtained could be seen as unfair and therefore a breach of Article 6 of The Human Rights Act 1998 and the judge would have to take this into consideration as in the case R v Sang, 'The judge heard argument as to whether he had discretion to exclude the evidence on the assumption that the activities were induced by an agent provocateur. He found he had no such discretion and was upheld by the Court of Appeal.