Leaving one's beat

[David Orsam]

Time for another review, methinks. Thus, on the face of it The Code imposes strict liability on an officer in respect of the requirement for taking particulars in a criminal case or an accident. On that basis PC Mizen was definitely guilty of misconduct.

This simply isn't true John. He wasn't "definitely guilty of misconduct" at all.

Police Officers could only act on the basis of their knowledge. So the Code cannot possibly have expected officers to act on the basis of hindsight (or psychic ability).

Frankly, if we took your logic then every single officer of the Metropolitan Police was "definitely guilty of misconduct" that night. None of them took the particulars of Cross and Paul. Yet there was "a criminal case" in existence.

But you will say, well of course it can't mean every other police officer, that's ridiculous, none of them spoke to Cross or Paul. But where does it say in the Code that the officer has to speak to or be spoken to by someone? All it says is that an officer is guilty of misconduct in: "Neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or a case of accident".

So unless this is nonsense it must imply that the officer is actually present at the time even though it is not expressly stated in the Code.

It must also imply that there are individuals whose details he can actually take. I mean, what if there was no-one around and Mizen found a murdered woman lying on the ground? It's a criminal case. But whose names and addresses can he take? There aren't any. So on your view of strict liability he is guilty of misconduct for not taking any names!!!

What is perfectly clear, John, is that the officer MUST have knowledge of a criminal case or a case of accident before being required to take details of relevant individuals. But in this case, on any view of the evidence, he had no such knowledge. So he cannot possibly have been guilty of misconduct under the Code.

[David Orsam]

It's also possible that PC Mizen was in breach of another provision of The Code. Thus, there's a provision in the Vincent Police Code entitled "Aid to the Injured." This provides that, "In serious cases of illness or injury in the streets, medical aid should be immediately procured." The emphasis is mine.

This isn't possible. You are reading from the 1912 version of the Police Code. It doesn't say it in the 1888 version.

[John G]

This simply isn't true John. He wasn't "definitely guilty of misconduct" at all.

Police Officers could only act on the basis of their knowledge. So the Code cannot possibly have expected officers to act on the basis of hindsight (or psychic ability).

Frankly, if we took your logic then every single officer of the Metropolitan Police was "definitely guilty of misconduct" that night. None of them took the particulars of Cross and Paul. Yet there was "a criminal case" in existence.

But you will say, well of course it can't mean every other police officer, that's ridiculous, none of them spoke to Cross or Paul. But where does it say in the Code that the officer has to speak to or be spoken to by someone? All it says is that an officer is guilty of misconduct in: "Neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or a case of accident".

So unless this is nonsense it must imply that the officer is actually present at the time even though it is not expressly stated in the Code.

It must also imply that there are individuals whose details he can actually take. I mean, what if there was no-one around and Mizen found a murdered woman lying on the ground? It's a criminal case. But whose names and addresses can he take? There aren't any. So on your view of strict liability he is guilty of misconduct for not taking any names!!!

What is perfectly clear, John, is that the officer MUST have knowledge of a criminal case or a case of accident before being required to take details of relevant individuals. But in this case, on any view of the evidence, he had no such knowledge. So he cannot possibly have been guilty of misconduct under the Code.

Hello David,

If the intention of The Code was to impose strict liability in these circumstances then he definitely was guilty of misconduct, as this was definitely a criminal case and he failed to take particulars. This is so clear cut that it's nor even a matter for debate (of course, this doesn't mean The Code, in this respect, was strictly applied, as reasonable discretion may have been exercised.)

Thus, strict liability doesn't require the element of fault. In Regina v Prince (1875) the defendant was convicted of taking a unmarried girl, under 16, out of the possession and against the will of her father. Although the jury found that the girl told the defendant that she was 18, and the defendant honestly believed the statement and the belief was reasonable, the conviction was affirmed. The statute required a strict liability application and, in such cases, knowledge isn't relevant. See: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/2125

Of course, the intention may not have been to impose strict liability. However, in that case it's a matter of debate as to what words should be read into The Code in order to give it efficacy. Personally, I would argue that PC Mizen should have acted reasonably, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Now, I don't say that he was definitely guilty of misconduct, or even probably guilty. But the salient issue, as I see it, is whether PC Mizen considered that there was a real risk that he could be subject to a misconduct inquiry. If so, he had a motive to lie.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

If the intention of The Code was to impose strict liability in these circumstances then he definitely was guilty of misconduct, as this was definitely a criminal case and he failed to take particulars. This is so clear cut that it's nor even a matter for debate (of course, this doesn't mean The Code, in this respect, was strictly applied, as reasonable discretion may have been exercised.)

Thus, strict liability doesn't require the element of fault. In Regina v Prince (1875)...

Well it's perfectly obvious where you are going wrong. You are applying a legal definition of "strict liability" to the Police Code? Why? The Police Code had no legal force? It was a code governing police behaviour.

As I keep saying but you continually ignore, the Police Code could not possibly have anticipated officers having special powers of (psychic) understanding. Unless they were told or could see that it was a criminal case the Police Code could not possibly apply.

Although you say "this was definitely a criminal case", Mizen could not have known it when the carmen approached him so he obviously wasn't required to take particulars.

It really is so simple John and you are overthinking and overcomplicating it.

[David Orsam]

Of course, the intention may not have been to impose strict liability.

Well it can't have done in a legal sense.

It's not possible for the Code to have meant that an officer would be found guilty of misconduct for not taking details in a situation where he didn't know it was a criminal case.

How is that a difficult concept to understand?

[David Orsam]

Now, I don't say that he was definitely guilty of misconduct, or even probably guilty. But the salient issue, as I see it, is whether PC Mizen considered that there was a real risk that he could be subject to a misconduct inquiry. If so, he had a motive to lie.

The only motive to lie would be if he had been told of a criminal case or an accident.

He wasn't told of either of these things, on any view of the evidence, therefore no motive to lie.

And further there wasn't a single suggestion in 1888 that he could be in any form of trouble for not taking the carmens' particulars. He wasn't even asked at the inquest. It's a wholly modern criticism.

[harry]

John,
This is from a Judge of that period. "Complete,in the sense of being entirely exhaustive, the manual cannot and does not pretend to be"
And
The duties of the police,are for the most part,defined by statute.

[Bridewell]

John,
This is from a Judge of that period. "Complete,in the sense of being entirely exhaustive, the manual cannot and does not pretend to be"
And
The duties of the police,are for the most part,defined by statute.

The Police Code seems to have been the earlier version of what would now be termed "Standing Orders", which I was always told were for the instruction of fools and the guidance of the wise.

[The Station Cat]

Found this which I thought might be of interest.....

DONALD WATERS (Police Inspector, J). On June 26th, a little after 10 p.m., I heard a whistle in Whitechapel Road—I saw the prisoner running, followed by a number of persons—I gave chase—after running about 100 yards in Ivy Lane, Friday Street, Bath Street, I overtook him in Bath Passage—we struggled—a constable came to my assistance—he continued to struggle, and kicked me in the leg, but did not hurt me much—other roughs got round—he was conveyed to Bethnal Green Police-station by two constables—

Working on the assumption, that Bath Street is just off Brady Street (Beat 2 on the below map). Two Constables come to the Insp's assistance. So one of them must have left their beat, whether that was from (Beat 1 or Beat 5)?

Unless of course one of them was on "Fixed Point" outside Whitechapel Railway Station (not sure whether that was still being manned at 10PM, but either way I further believe that things had to be very direr for a Constable to leave "Fixed Point", so I think it's more likely that one of these Bobbies left his beat?

[David Orsam]

I further believe that things had to be very direr for a Constable to leave "Fixed Point"

This is a myth.

The rules relating to fixed points had been set down in a Police Order dated 9 August 1871 and featured in General Orders of 1873. This said, in respect of police officers at fixed points:

'In the event of any person springing a rattle, or persistently ringing a bell in the street or in an area, the Police will at once proceed to the spot and render assistance, as in every other case in which Police duties and powers require them to act.'

Sir Charles Warren clarified the position in a Police Order issued on 11 December 1886 which stated:

'A Constable may leave his fixed point, as at present, whenever it becomes necessary in the execution of his duty.'

[The Station Cat]

This is a myth.

The rules relating to fixed points had been set down in a Police Order dated 9 August 1871 and featured in General Orders of 1873. This said, in respect of police officers at fixed points:

'In the event of any person springing a rattle, or persistently ringing a bell in the street or in an area, the Police will at once proceed to the spot and render assistance, as in every other case in which Police duties and powers require them to act.'

Sir Charles Warren clarified the position in a Police Order issued on 11 December 1886 which stated:

'A Constable may leave his fixed point, as at present, whenever it becomes necessary in the execution of his duty.'

Interest!!! Yet there are a couple of occasions whereby members of the public had complained about Fixed Point Bobbies not assisting them or fobbing them off, perhaps...............

[David Orsam]

Interest!!! Yet there are a couple of occasions whereby members of the public had complained about Fixed Point Bobbies not assisting them or fobbing them off, perhaps...............

They had to have good reason to leave a fixed point, just like a constable needed a good reason to leave his beat. Another constable requiring urgent assistance would have been such a reason.

[martin wilson]

I'm not sure where to post this but this thread seems to be related at least.
I found a description of police beats, albeit going back a bit to 1869 in the Pall Mall Gazette.
This says a chalk system was sometimes used by a policeman who was required to make a mark at certain known points, which the inspecting sergeant would then erase and expect to see on his next round.
Does anybody know if this was still in use in 1888? I've done my due diligence, but it's the only reference I can find. Thanks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure where to post this but this thread seems to be related at least.
I found a description of police beats, albeit going back a bit to 1869 in the Pall Mall Gazette.
This says a chalk system was sometimes used by a policeman who was required to make a mark at certain known points, which the inspecting sergeant would then erase and expect to see on his next round.
Does anybody know if this was still in use in 1888? I've done my due diligence, but it's the only reference I can find. Thanks.

I’ve never heard of that system Martin. It seems an open opportunity for mischief-makers to go around erasing the chalk marks and getting Constables into trouble.

[martin wilson]

Hi Herlock

That's s a very good point.

I couldn't find any other reference to it, which makes me think it was discontinued shortly afterwards for that very reason.

Thanks.