Extending detention without charge from 24 to 36 hours (PACE 1984 ss.41 and 42)
Hannah Brooks was arrested at her home at 08:15 on Monday 9 November 2026 on suspicion of fraud by false representation, an either-way offence. She arrived at the police station at 09:00 that day. Her detention has been reviewed twice. At 07:30 on Tuesday, officers still need to interview her about documents seized from her office. The investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, and further detention is necessary to obtain evidence by questioning her. Her solicitor, Imran Shah, is at the station.
Which of the following best describes how Hannah's detention without charge may be extended?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer E: A superintendent responsible for the station may authorise detention until 21:00 on Tuesday, after allowing representations.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A superintendent or above responsible for the station may extend detention without charge for an indictable (including either-way) offence to 36 hours from the relevant time, after the second review and within 24 hours.
Extending detention without charge from 24 to 36 hours (PACE 1984 ss.41 and 42)
Under s.41(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a person must not be kept in police detention for more than 24 hours without charge, subject to ss.42 and 43. For a person arrested locally, the "relevant time" is the time of arrival at the first police station after arrest (s.41(2)(d)), here 09:00 on Monday. Under s.42(1), an officer of the rank of superintendent or above who is responsible for the station may authorise detention for a period expiring at or before 36 hours after the relevant time. The officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that detention without charge is necessary to secure, preserve or obtain evidence by questioning, that the offence is an indictable offence, and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. Fraud is triable either way, and an either-way offence is an "indictable offence" (Interpretation Act 1978, Sch 1). The authorisation must be given within 24 hours of the relevant time and after the second review (s.42(4)), so 07:30 on Tuesday is in time. Before deciding, the superintendent must give Hannah or her available solicitor an opportunity to make representations (s.42(6)). The latest possible expiry is 21:00 on Tuesday.
Why A is wrong: s.42(1) requires an officer of superintendent rank or above; an inspector cannot extend.
Why B is wrong: A s.43 magistrates' warrant is needed only to go beyond 36 hours.
Why C is wrong: 'Indictable offence' includes either-way offences such as fraud.
Why D is wrong: The relevant time is arrival at the station under s.41(2)(d), so 36 hours runs from 09:00 to 21:00.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Timing of the first review of detention before charge (PACE 1984 s.40)
By what time must the first review of Priya's detention be carried out, and by whom?
Delaying access to legal advice at the police station (PACE s.58)
Which of the following best describes whether the delay is lawful?
Delaying the right to have someone informed of arrest (PACE 1984 s.56)
Which of the following best describes whether telling Tomasz's partner may be delayed?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.