Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Richard Taylor
Posted on 4 Dec 2008 2:00 pm

"that the police did not explain, as they are required to do, that the Serjeant was not obliged to consent, or that a warrant could have been insisted upon."

This requirement arises from section 5.2 of PACE Code B ( )

There are many important safeguards intended to protect people when they are stopped, searched, arrested, questioned and detained by the police contained only within the PACE codes. It is not currently clear to what extent the police have to follow the PACE codes. My local police have made statements saying they consider them merely voluntary guidance. One potential positive outcome of this affair could be strengthening the status of the PACE codes, which would ensure not just MPs, but also the wider public benefit from improved safeguards during their dealings with the police.

A ministerial statement saying the PACE codes need to be followed would be one option, though if MPs simply mention this was a breach of the PACE codes and make clear they take such a breach seriously, that may go some way to having the desired effect. I have written to my local MP, and others, suggesting this:

Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.