Journals / Polis Bilimleri Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2

İngiltere ve Galler'de Şüphecilerin Gözaltına Alınması

Regulating Detention of Suspects in England and Wales

Pages
1–14
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, it appears that the detention procedure under PACE still remains open to errors, although this is less likely than in the pre-PACE period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was regarded as a fundamental law reform in the field of police powers and suspects' rights and a landmark in the history of modern policing in England and Wales.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The act introduced a number of new elements in the detention of a suspect, such as the provision of a custody officer and review of detention, and whilst claiming to provide a tighter regulation of detention procedure, it increased and intensified the powers of the police to bring the suspects into police custody.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, it appears that the detention procedure under PACE still remains open to errors, although this is less likely than in the pre-PACE period.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was regarded as a fundamental law reform in the field of police powers and suspects' rights and a landmark in the history of modern policing in England and Wales. Notably, as a statutory codification and rationalisation of police powers and the safeguards over their exercise, it had a symbolic and a practical importance. Together with its associated codes of practice, it not only provided for the first time a detailed legislative framework for the operation of police powers and rights of suspects, but also set up a framework of rules designed to provide a tighter regulation of police powers and new controls on the treatment of suspects in custody. The act introduced a number of new elements in the detention of a suspect, such as the provision of a custody officer and review of detention, and whilst claiming to provide a tighter regulation of detention procedure, it increased and intensified the powers of the police to bring the suspects into police custody. Perhaps one of the most important changes that took place was detention for questioning. With a considerable clarity, PACE legalized the pre-charge detention procedure and detention for questioning; leaving little room for ambiguity that may have been caused by lack of regulation. After PACE came into force a considerable amount of research investigated whether or not the new rules had any impact when compared with the previous practices. The review of these studies suggests that PACE seems to have had a certain effect on the nature and outcomes of police handling of suspects, but integration of the rules into police culture and working practices was uneven and incomplete. In conclusion, it appears that the detention procedure under PACE still remains open to errors, although this is less likely than in the pre-PACE period.

Özet

1984 tarihli ingiliz Polis ve Adli Deliller Kanunu ve buna bağlı olarak çıkarılan yönetmelikler, İngiltere ve Galler'de arama, gözaltına alma, yakalama, sorgulama ve parmak izi alma gibi prosedürler ile ilgili olarak polisin yetki ve ödevlerini düzenleyen ayrıntılı hukuki düzenlemeler içermektedir. Daha önce mahkeme içtihatlarının yön verdiği polisin gözaltına alma yetkisi, anılan kanunla birlikte İngiliz hukuk tarihinde ilk defa bir kanun ve yönetmelik tarafından doğrudan bir hukuki prosedüre tabi tutulmuştur. Kısaca PACE olarak adlandırılan bu yasaya göre gözaltına alınan şüpheliler, bir takım haklara sahiptir. Bunların başında haklarının kendisine bildirilmesi, bir avukat ile görüşebilme ve gözaltına alındığının yakınlarına haber verilmesini isteme gibi haklar gelmektedir. Kanunla getirilen en önemli yenilik ise 'gözaltı memuru' (custody officer) uygulamasıdır. Bu uygulama ile gözaltı memuru, gözaltına alma prosedürünün tam olarak işleyişinden birinci derecede sorumlu tutulmakta ve bir anlamda kanunun amacına uygun işleyişi güvence altına alınmaya çalışılmaktadır. Ancak, kanunun uygulamada işleyişi ile ilgili yapılan bilimsel araştırmalar kanun koyucunun amaçlarının tam olarak gerçekleşmediğini göstermektedir. Bununla beraber, adli hataların yeni kanunun yürürlüğe girmesinden sonra bir azalma sürecine girdiği görülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARICAN, M. (2003). İngiltere ve Galler'de Şüphecilerin Gözaltına Alınması. Polis Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 2, 1–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/301380

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Ashworth, A., (1994), The Criminal Process: An Evaluative Study, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Benyon, J., (1986), "Powers and Proprieties in the Police Station", in Benyon, J. and Bourn, C. (eds.), The Police: Powers, Procedures and Proprieties, Oxford: Pergamon. Bottomley, A. K., Coleman. C., Dixon, D., Gill, M., and Wall, D., (1991), The Impact of PACE: Policing in a Northern Force, Hull: The University of Hull Press.
  3. Bridges, L., (1994), "Normalizing Injustice: The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice", in Field, S and Thomas, P A (eds.), Justice and Efficiency? The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  4. Brown, D., (1989), Detention at the Police Station under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Home Office Research Study No. 104, London: HMSO. Brown, D., (1991), Investigation Burglary: The effects of PACE, Home Office Research Study, London: HMSO. Brown, D., (1997), PACE Ten Years On: A Review of the Research. HORS 155, London: HMSO. Criminal Law Revision Committee (CLRC), (1972), llth Report, Evidence (General), Cmnd. 4991, London: HMSO. Davies, M. and Croall, H. and Tryrer, J., (1998), Criminal Justice: An Introduction to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, Second Edition, London: Longman. Dixon, D., (1992), Detention for Questioning in Australia and England: A Comparative Perspective on the Legal Regulation of Policing, Hull University Law School Studies in Law Publications. Eddleston, J. J., (2000), Blind Justice: Miscarriages of Justice in Twentieth-Gentry Britain? Oxford: ABC-CLIO Ltd. Evans, R., (1992), The Conduct of Police Interviews with Juveniles, Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Research Study No. 8, London: HMSO. Fisher, Sir Henry, (1977), Report of an Inquiry by the Honourable Sir Henry Fisher into the Circumtances Leading to the Trial of Three Persons on Charges Arising out of the Death of Maxwell Confait and the Fire at 27 Dodgett Road, London SE6, London: HMSO. Freeman, M., (1985), The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, London: Sweet and Maxwell. Gifford, T., (1986), Where is the Justice: a Manifesto for Law Reform, Penguin: Harmondsworth. Home Office, (1978), Judges' Rules and Administrative Directions to the Police, London: HMSO. Home Office, (1991), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s.66), (Codes of Practice Revised Edition), London: HMSO. Irving, B. and McKenzie, I. K., (1988), Regulating Custodial Interviews: The Effects Of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 198