The ‘to allow (for) the prompt andThe ‘to allow (for) the prompt and

The first issue is whether the grounds of the arrest were lawful since they require ‘reasonable grounds.’ The police based the arrest on objective and subjective knowledge, starting with the objective: Guy was at the gym from 9-10pm the night of the incident, and had an argument with James, the victim, accusing him of having an affair with his wife, giving him the motive to want to harm James. Making the grounds for the arrest lawful, yet subjective reasoning is needed for the arrest to be wholeheartedly lawful. Subjective reasoning being ‘genuine suspicion’ that the police will ‘find the object’, being a car, which caused injuries to James. There exists suspicion that the car is Guy’s, the witness described the car as silver, alike Guy’s car, however, Guy’s wife could be registered and have driven in the area, falsely linking Guy to the incident. The witness admitted the driver was not visible in the dark, making her judgment of the car not entirely reliable. The reasons for suspecting Guy are mostly logical, yet the witness’ connection to being in the car park, or to James or Guy is unknown, limiting her statement. Despite this, the grounds of the arrest are lawful, which contrasts to Castorina where subjective reasons were not used, consequently hindering justice. A reason for arrest is necessary to make it convincingly lawful, the police’s reason being ‘to allow (for) the prompt and effective investigation of the offence.’ This was lawfully conducted as they arrested Guy knowing that there were ‘reasonable grounds for suspecting (him) to be guilty’. Therefore this treatment is lawful.The conduct of the arrest is only lawful when the suspect is ‘informed promptly… of the reasons for his arrest’. The police intend on telling Guy the reasons, but were interrupted and did not continue later, resulting in the arrest being marginally unlawful. Within Lewis, the arresting officer failed to inform the arrestee of the reasons for arrest, this fault was rectified when told later. The police did not confirm the reasoning later, so the arrest is unlawful. A ‘caution … must be given on arrest’, otherwise, it is not lawful, cautioning takes place at the same time as the reasoning does. Indeed Guy did interrupt and was in a panicked state for 10 minutes, the cautioning could have continued if there was time to register it. The conduct of the arrest is primarily unlawful given ‘arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest’, this can be supported by Alderson where asking someone to attend a police station did not constitute as an arrest, so the arrest was unlawful.The journey to the station is lawful when taken ‘to a police station as soon as practicable after the arrest’. However, PC Denman stopped off at a friend’s house, which does not comply with the exception where a constable’s presence is needed ‘in order to carry out investigations’, rendering the stop unlawful. In John Lewis, Tims appealed against his conviction due to false imprisonment, it was allowed given the stopping was unlawful alike this situation. An interview in a car is unlawful, given that the arrestee ‘must not be interviewed about the relevant offence except at a police station’. Guy was questioned, with no valid reasoning, the exceptions allow car interviews when the ‘delay would be likely to lead to interference with.. evidence’. Which does not apply in this situation, furthering the unlawful treatment suffered by Guy.The custody officer must open a ‘custody record… as soon as practicable’, PC Denman completed this task, although not a custody officer, an ‘officer of any rank may perform the functions of a custody officer’, given the designated officer was unavailable, Denman could lawfully do so, except it states it cannot be ‘performed by an officer.. involved in the investigation’. Informing the arrestee of their rights is essential, for instance, ‘a person arrested and held in custody… shall be entitled.. to consult a solicitor’. Guy is told of his rights, even though Guy declined a solicitor, he was still informed of his rights, so he was treated lawfully. The custody officer has to decide if the detainee is fit for an interview, ‘when the custody officer has any doubt about the mental state… of a detainee, (they) should be treated as mentally vulnerable’. It took Guy 10 minutes to calm down after his arrest, suggesting anxiety, an interview should not take place if the detainee is abnormally anxious, since the nerves would impact the interview. In Brine, a man made a confession when suffering from a mild form of paranoid psychosis, so he was stressed by the questioning as it threatened him, so he told lies. The court made his confession inadmissible since it was unlawfully obtained, coinciding with the pressure that Guy felt. An alternative would be for Guy to seek medical attention, to determine if he needed an ‘appropriate adult’ to be present at all interviews, to ensure he was lawfully treated.A phone call is allowed to the detainee, as they can ‘have one friend or relative’,’ told of his whereabouts. The police denied Guy from phoning his wife, since the police had ‘reasonable grounds for believing that ..(it would) lead to interference with evidence’, since his wife could have fixed the front bumper, impacting the evidence majorly. Consequently, the police’s actions were lawful.Detention timings are lawful when, ‘the first review (is) not later than six hours after the detention’, Guy was kept in a cell for 7 hours after his detention, clearly unlawfully treating Guy. However, a ‘person shall not be kept in police detention for more than 24 hours’, and Guy was kept for 12, rendering the timings marginally lawful. ‘Recognised meal times’ should be employed to ensure legality, also ‘at least two light meals and one main meal’ should be offered to the detainee every 24 hours. Guy was detained for 12 hours, with no suggestion of meals, consequently being treated unlawfully. A lawful interview needs ‘two-hour intervals’. Guy was interviewed for 3 hours, making the conduct of the interview unlawful. Confessions in interviews cannot be ‘obtained .. in consequence of anything said .. which was likely to render unreliable any confession’. PC Denman told Guy if he confessed he would grant bail for him, this impacts the reliability of a suspect’s confession, so it is unlawful. This similar to Barry, where the police influenced a confession, making the detainee believe he would get bail if he confessed, the court excluded the confession as it was unlawful. Even though Guy did not confess, the police’s treatment to Guy was still unlawful.The refusal of bail is unlawful given everyone should ‘be granted bail’, Guy was refused as the burden of proof fell on Guy, as he did not prove he worthy of bail yet this is the prosecution’s role, additionally there was evidence suggesting Guy would tamper with evidence and try to threaten or assault James again, so there’s ‘no security’ of him returning to custody. Yet you can ‘impose conditions’, to find a balance between upholding the defendant’s rights and protecting the public. A condition could include Guy wearingan electronic tag, enabling him to support his family financially by working, whilst being controlled as the police fear he will flee given ‘14% of those bailed fail to appear in court’. The Magistrates refusal of bail was wrong, given their ‘function ..(is)to protect the fairness of proceedings’. Furthermore, the majority of evidence against Guy was inadmissible due to the substantial illegality Guy suffered from the police.