Leaving one's beat

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

But that doesn't make any sense. I mean, how could he possibly know that it's a criminal case, or an accident, until an autopsy has been carried out? Or at least until he'd visited the crime scene himself. He can't be expected to simply take the word of a total stranger, as they might be lying, or their account may be unreliable.

That cannot possibly be the purpose of the Code, otherwise no officer would take down particulars whatever the circumstances. On that basis the Code becomes meaningless.

However, if we take a purposive approach, we could say that the officer would be allowed a certain amount of discretion, but obviously not unfettered discretion. In other words, he's required to exercise this discretion sensibly. This would give the Code efficacy.

And, on that basis, it might be argued that if he's informed there's a woman lying down, possibly injured, or even dead, then a crime may have been committed, and therefore it would be sensible for him, in these circumstances, to take down particulars.

I absolutely do not know what you are talking about John. Are you saying a police officer is not expected to know what a crime is? Or an accident?

You seem to be overthinking this by a factor of one million.

The code is clear and simple. When a crime is known, or reported, an officer is required to takes details. The same for an accident. On all other occasions there is no requirement. Forget what transpires later. It is what is known or reported at the time.

There is no discretion there. He just follows the code.

Where there is a known or reported crime or accident. Details.

Where there is no known or reported crime or accident. No details.

[John G]

John, you were the one who referred to "sensible construction" of the code. So there can only be a requirement for a constable to take details in a criminal case when he actually knows it to be a criminal case. Otherwise it's a code for psychics and mind readers.

Hi David,

But that doesn't make any sense. I mean, how could he possibly know that it's a criminal case, or an accident, until an autopsy has been carried out? Or at least until he'd visited the crime scene himself. He can't be expected to simply take the word of a total stranger, as they might be lying, or their account may be unreliable.

That cannot possibly be the purpose of the Code, otherwise no officer would take down particulars whatever the circumstances. On that basis the Code becomes meaningless.

However, if we take a purposive approach, we could say that the officer would be allowed a certain amount of discretion, but obviously not unfettered discretion. In other words, he's required to exercise this discretion sensibly. This would give the Code efficacy.

And, on that basis, it might be argued that if he's informed there's a woman lying down, possibly injured, or even dead, then a crime may have been committed, and therefore it would be sensible for him, in these circumstances, to take down particulars.

[David Orsam]

But the Code doesn't say anything about "state of knowledge"

John, you were the one who referred to "sensible construction" of the code. So there can only be a requirement for a constable to take details in a criminal case when he actually knows it to be a criminal case. Otherwise it's a code for psychics and mind readers.

[John G]

But he gave evidence before Cross, so he could hardly dispute what hadn't yet been said.

He wasn't psychic John!



I don't actually know what discretion you are talking about. The Police Code doesn't refer to any discretion. It just says an officer should take details in a criminal case or a case of accident. You are the one introducing discretion. But discretion means freedom to make one's own decision so if he has discretion it makes a nonsense of it if he gets in trouble for using it!!!

However, his evidence is clearly at variance with that of Cross', David. And discretion doesn't mean unfetted discretion. He would be expected to exercise any discretion sensibly, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

Thus, it could be argued that if he was told that there was a woman lying down, possibly dead, he could reasonably conclude that a crime may have taken place, and therefore should have taken particulars.

[John G]

It doesn't matter, he's been told a criminal offence has been committed. So his state of knowledge is that it's a criminal case. If it turns out there is no criminal offence it won't matter. But if there has been a criminal offence (as he has been told) and he hasn't taken the details, one can see that he could be in trouble for neglecting to take details.

But the Code doesn't say anything about "state of knowledge"

[David Orsam]

I don't think it can be answered. Thus, let us say that he's informed that someone has been murdered. However, it subsequently transpires that he's been tricked, i e. to get him to abandon his beat. Clearly no murder has actually taken place in these circumstances, hence no criminal case.

It doesn't matter, he's been told a criminal offence has been committed. So his state of knowledge is that it's a criminal case. If it turns out there is no criminal offence it won't matter. But if there has been a criminal offence (as he has been told) and he hasn't taken the details, one can see that he could be in trouble for neglecting to take details.

[David Orsam]

Yes he did! At least by implication, because his account fundamentally differs from Cross'.

But he gave evidence before Cross, so he could hardly dispute what hadn't yet been said.

He wasn't psychic John!

And are you really arguing that his discretion would be unfetted?

I don't actually know what discretion you are talking about. The Police Code doesn't refer to any discretion. It just says an officer should take details in a criminal case or a case of accident. You are the one introducing discretion. But discretion means freedom to make one's own decision so if he has discretion it makes a nonsense of it if he gets in trouble for using it!!!

[John G]

Do I really need to answer that?

I don't think it can be answered. Thus, let us say that he's informed that someone has been murdered. However, it subsequently transpires that he's been tricked, i e. to get him to abandon his beat. Clearly no murder has actually taken place in these circumstances, hence no criminal case.

[John G]

He didn't dispute anything.

Anyway this argument is quite mad. If he has discretion then he has discretion. You can't get in trouble for using discretion if you have it!

Yes he did! At least by implication, because his account fundamentally differs from Cross'.

And are you really arguing that his discretion would be unfetted?

[David Orsam]

But PC Mizen disputed that he was told a woman was lying down, possibly dead, which could conceivably suggest a crime had taken place. Instead, he claimed that he was told he was wanted by another officer.

He didn't dispute anything.

Anyway this argument is quite mad. If he has discretion then he has discretion. You can't get in trouble for using discretion if you have it!

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

How is it obviously a "criminal case" simply because an officer has been informed by a total stranger/ member of the public that a crime has been committed?

Do I really need to answer that?

[John G]

It's got nothing to do with his testimony at the inquest. His superiors would, obviously, have known that he hadn't taken the names or addresses of the two men.

If they had thought that he hadn't used his discretion properly (which was the point you were making) they would no doubt have disciplined him for neglect of duty. But they didn't, which allows us to confirm that, if it was an issue of discretion (which, of course, I don't agree that it was), he used it correctly.

But PC Mizen disputed that he was told a woman was lying down, possibly dead, which could conceivably suggest a crime had taken place. Instead, he claimed that he was told he was wanted by another officer.

[John G]

Come on John, give this up. If you are speaking now of a "sensible construction" of the Police Code then the officer MUST know that there has been a crime or an accident right?

I mean, it's not the Police Code for Psychic Police Officers is it?

It's obviously a criminal case or a case of accident when the officer knows, or is informed, that a crime or accident has occurred.

Hello David,

How is it obviously a "criminal case" simply because an officer has been informed by a total stranger/ member of the public that a crime has been committed?

[David Orsam]

There's no record of PC Mizen being investigated, or punished, on the basis that his testimony was contradicted at the inquest.

It's got nothing to do with his testimony at the inquest. His superiors would, obviously, have known that he hadn't taken the names or addresses of the two men.

If they had thought that he hadn't used his discretion properly (which was the point you were making) they would no doubt have disciplined him for neglect of duty. But they didn't, which allows us to confirm that, if it was an issue of discretion (which, of course, I don't agree that it was), he used it correctly.

[David Orsam]

But at which point does it become a "criminal case." After the inquest verdict? After the police open an official investigation?

No sensible construction of the Code could lead to either conclusion, otherwise it might lead to absurd results.

Come on John, give this up. If you are speaking now of a "sensible construction" of the Police Code then the officer MUST know that there has been a crime or an accident right?

I mean, it's not the Police Code for Psychic Police Officers is it?

It's obviously a criminal case or a case of accident when the officer knows, or is informed, that a crime or accident has occurred.