Michael aged 18 was skate boarding on the road where he lived when he was approached by Police Officer Anjou. It was One O'clock in the morning and Anjou asked him where he was going on his skate board.
Michael replied that "It was none of his business." He was known to the local police for minor infringements such as skateboarding in the town square, under age drinking and abusive behaviour while drunk. But he had never been convicted of any offence.
Anjou told Michael that unless he was more cooperative he would arrest him. Michael said "I am on my way home. My bike has a puncture so I have decided to skateboard home because it is quicker than walking."
The police officer then asked to search Michael who at that point said "get lost"
He was promptly arrested on the suspicion of a burglary which had taken place in the vicinity that night.
He was taken to Alban police station where he was searched and nothing was found. At the police station he demanded that he see a solicitor. He contacted a family friend who was a solicitor who sent along a trainee called Sophie who was angry at being called out so late at night.
Michael informed the Sophie that he had not been involved in any burglary and was on his way home from seeing his friends. He did not want to say who the friends were because they had been taking cannabis and he was worried that if the police visited them they would be arrested for possession of cannabis.
Sophie advised Michael to remain silent and then left to go home to bed. Michael refused to answer any questions put to him by the police and he was charged with the burglary. At his trial he put forward his defence that he had been with friends that night and the reason why he had remained silent at the police station.
He appealed on two grounds:-
The arrest was unlawful for lack of reasonable suspicion.
No adverse inferences should be drawn from his decision to remain silent at the police station.
Discuss these two issues in the context of civil liberties and human rights.
Answer by JB
Sorry, I don't do others homework. But, given just the information you gave, the arrest was unconstitutional and the warrant should have never been issued on those grounds. Any prosecutor worth their weight would recognize that. And, as shown in many court cases, remaining silent should never be used to draw inferences, good or bad.
Good luck with your work.
Answer by Poppy
The arrest was unlawful for lack of reasonable suspicion.
The officer arrested Michael unlawfully, because there was no evidence to link Michael with the burglary. His civil rights were therefore violated.
No adverse inferences should be drawn from his decision to remain silent at the police station.
When arrested a person is told, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say might be taken down and used against you as evidence" (Or words to that affect).
The fact that he remained silent was taken as an admission of guilt, and yet it was his right to remain silent. The reason he didn't say where he had been at the time of the burglary was because he was afraid he would get his friends into trouble with the law because they had been smoking cannabis.
Give your answer to this question below!
Orignal From: human rights question, help in doing it?
Post a Comment