Delaying the right to have someone informed of arrest (PACE 1984 s.56)
Tomasz Kowalski is arrested on suspicion of robbery, an indictable offence, and is detained at a police station in England. He asks for his partner to be told that he has been arrested. The custody sergeant believes that Tomasz's brother, who is suspected of taking part in the robbery but has not yet been arrested, lives with the partner and would be alerted.
Which of the following best describes whether telling Tomasz's partner may be delayed?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer D: An inspector or above may authorise delay on reasonable grounds that telling the partner will alert another suspect, but the right must be allowed within 36 hours of the relevant time.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Informing someone of an arrest may be delayed only for an indictable offence, on inspector's authority and specified grounds, and never beyond 36 hours from the relevant time.
Delaying the right to have someone informed of arrest (PACE 1984 s.56)
Section 56(1) of PACE 1984 entitles an arrested person held in custody to have one friend, relative or other person likely to take an interest in their welfare told of the arrest as soon as practicable. Delay is permitted only where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer of at least the rank of inspector authorises it (s.56(2)). The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that telling the named person will lead to one of the listed consequences, which include alerting other people suspected of the offence who have not yet been arrested (s.56(5)(b)). In any case, the detainee must be allowed to exercise the right within 36 hours from the relevant time (s.56(3)). Robbery is indictable and the belief that the brother would be alerted is a permitted ground, so an inspector may authorise a delay, subject to the 36-hour limit.
Why A is wrong: Section 56(2) and (5) expressly permit delay in limited circumstances for indictable offences.
Why B is wrong: A sergeant cannot authorise delay under s.56; the minimum rank is inspector, and the outer limit is 36 hours.
Why C is wrong: Superintendent rank is required to delay access to legal advice under s.58, not for s.56; and the limit is 36 hours, not 48.
Why E is wrong: Section 56 contains no rule tying the delay to the end of an interview; the limit is the 36 hours in s.56(3).
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Delaying access to legal advice at the police station (PACE s.58)
Which of the following best describes whether the delay is lawful?
Extending detention without charge from 24 to 36 hours (PACE 1984 ss.41 and 42)
Which of the following best describes how Hannah's detention without charge may be extended?
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?
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.