Clause 6 - Property of detained persons
Criminal Justice Bill
10:45 am
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
This important clause is of some concern to practitioners of law in the legal profession and the police. It removes the requirement on the custody officer under PACE to
''record or cause to be recorded''
everything that a detained person has with him or her on entering custody. The custody officer must still find out what the person has with him, but any recording is entirely at the custody officer's discretion. For reasons that I shall develop, I have concerns about removing that duty from the custody officer, because it is in the interest of the police and, arguably, of defendants that the law should remain as it is. My amendments would provide that a defendant could request a record to be kept, and that if he did, it should be kept. Also, he should be offered that option on every relevant occasion. Amendment No. 18 would provide, in terms, that even if the clause was not amended in those ways, and a full written record was not required, an exception should be made in the case of cash in the possession of the defendant.
Currently, the police must make a record of everything that the defendant has with him that is of value or that may be used by him to harm himself. All such items are inevitably removed from a defendant. Interestingly, practice varies from police station to police station and county to county, and it is sometimes left to the custody officer's discretion to decide what items should be removed, and the reasons to be given. For example, a Rolex watch is an item of value and would come off and go into the custody record. A pocket knife would be taken for the reason that it could be used to harm the defendant or another.
I recently asked a very senior police officer about earrings, which a large number of young men wear. Oddly enough, the response was that at the station in question the practice was to leave them with the defendant. The conversation provoked the officer to say that, interestingly, a comb is sometimes left with a defendant and sometimes taken and recorded on a separate sheet. Not every police station takes the same approach, but the principle is that a record is kept of everything that the defendant has with him. My amendments are needed so that the provision removing the requirement to keep a record is watered down sufficiently to preserve the protection of both police and defendant.
There are obvious reasons why belts and shoelaces would be taken from a defendant. What happens to a wallet containing cards and money? You may know, Mr. Illsley, that custody suites are videoed round the clock. The police make a terribly good effort to ensure that all that they do is caught on video as well as recording it on paper. In dealing with a wallet, they would mention that there was a wallet containing £50 cash and a Visa card. Then they would note on the written record ''sundry other cards''. A Boots Advantage card is not an item of value, or one with
which one would damage oneself. They might also make a note of ''sundry other photographs''. Those are the categories: valuable items, possibly damaging items, and items sometimes generically included. A full and proper record is kept.
Is it a burden? The answer is yes and no. Until recently, I did not know that the police do not regard computerised records of items taken from a defendant as a burden. It is relatively straightforward, but not every county is computerised, and some forces still take the record by hand. Has the Minister asked chief constables whether their forces are computerised to the extent that the written records of defendants' items kept at a police station are on a computer, or still done by hand? Surrey police force became computerised for that purpose in 1993.
My experience of record keeping of items removed from a defendant and kept at a police station is gleaned from my contact with Surrey police force. I spoke to several, though not many, officers in the area who believed that the computerised records were not a burden now, but had been in the past when it was all done by hand. That is not surprising, but the police face serious burdens in making other records, to which I shall return in a moment.
Why, then, does my amendment refer to keeping a separate record of the money? The answer is plain: without a written record of the money that a defendant has on his or her person, the way is open for allegations of impropriety against the police later.
It is interesting to note the observations of the Metropolitan police force, which broadly supported the proposal
''in so far as it will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy'',
but its submission also referred to
''concerns that implementing this proposal may, on occasion, leave police more open to allegations of impropriety.''
That is the view of the Metropolitan police and it is clearly in the interests of the police as well as the defendant to keep a detailed record of the money, but the clause removes the requirement to record
''everything which a detained person has with him''.