This
piece of work will discuss to what extent pre – trials procedures trials and
stop and search adhere to the due process values. For a better understanding,
understanding the values of due process is essential.  The due process itself does not agree with
the police in certain aspects generally due to miscarriages of justice and the
previous cases of controversy, they accentuate the impartiality on the trial
proceedings and supervise the evidenced presented and cross examination. Due
Process supports the idea that it should be avenue of appeal and a structure of
appeals courts and mechanism abut in other hand this process is often described
as an obstacle course to the justice when it comes to convicting suspects.

 

 

Primarily,
the police powers in regards of stop, search and detain with reasonable
suspicion for any unlawful wrong doing was confined to London and other cities
with a local legislation to the main purpose. The “ways and means Act” was
often used by the police in zones where such power did not exist. This act was
a code word for deceit to acquire compliance from those they wished to stop and
search. However, Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which questionably wound
up noticeably known as the ‘sus’ law, empowered police to stop and pursuit
certain people they associated with frequenting or standing around in an open
place with purpose to confer an arrestable offense.  The 1970s saw a developing drive for more
noteworthy police responsibility in targeting black men when it come to stop
and search procedures especially youthful black men progressively protested the
way and recurrence with which they were stopped and search. PACE was introduced to ensure that individuals were not arbitrarily detained
by legal authorities which also re-enforced the due process views; Pace also
had a tremendous impact on stop and search, by including in the Pace Code that
individual must only go through stop and search with a reason suspicion. Pace
provides a comprehensive set of laws that govern the detention of the
individual by the police officer. A police officer can arrest an individual
whom they suspect of an arrestable offence or is about to commit an arrestable
offence, as long there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion. The police
officer is arresting an individual must inform of the reasons for arrest (PACE
28) at the time of or as soon as practicable. The individual must also be
cautioned which sets out that a person has the right to silence but silence can
be construed as guilt and anything said will be written down and used in court,
this also is included in the due process by letting the suspect receive advice.
Once detained a person must be taken to a detention center where the time of
detention is counted from or 24 hours after detention, whichever is the
earliest (PACE 41); the individual must be released 24 hours after detention if
no charge is brought or if lengthened detention is authorized. Detention can be
extended to 36 hours by a superintendent if he has reasonable grounds that
fulfil section 42. Once again this adheres to due process values. If the
prosecution fails to bring a charge, then there should be no reason the keep
the suspect arrested. However, there are problems with PACE, such as the right
to silence and the implication that if one refuses to talk this implies guilt; During
stop and search, if the suspect is taken into custody, he has the right of
silence but unfortunately practicing this right implies guilty and illustrates
that the legislation protects crime control at any cost rather than due process.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

This section of article is imperative to the whole pre-trial process and
a system of fair and how much they adhere to due process, because if one had to
prove they were not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then the consequences are
too high. This is a fundamental right which is common to all democratic systems
and a keystone of justice. If this basic right was not present, then there
would not be any fair criminal hearing. However, the English System has come
under a lot of fire in respect to the right of silence, which is a keystone in
the due process values, because under English Law silence can be equated to
guilt if the crime control is considered or self-incrimination if the due
process is utilized. The leading case on this point is Murray (John) v
UK where the arrested individual argued that he should have an
inherent right to silence, akin to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.
It was argued that the English judiciary cannot imply guilt or adverse
inferences from silence:

to subverting the presumption of innocence
and the onus of proof resulting from that presumption: it is for the
prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt without any assistance from the latter
being acquired. There is also a presumption in
favor of bail in both English and is often explained as being required by the
right to liberty. As we have seen, however, a convicted person has no such
right, thus following the due process values the presumption of innocence again
reminds us that since an accused is not to be treated as if he has already been
found guilty, pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified on the basis that the
accused ‘is guilty’. Bail may be denied for someone who has previously ab-
seconded pre-trial, since they he shown that they are flight- risk. It is the
past, ascertained behavior (the failure turn up for a trial) which justifies
the denial of bail, rather than an assumption that they are guilty of this
current charge. In the case of serious crimes such as murder, it may be
reasonable to base bail decisions on generalizations: this is because there is
a perception that people who are bailed on a charge of murder often attempt to
abscond, therefore jurisdiction may adopt a policy of remanding in custody all
who face such charges. This does not imply that all of those who are accused of
murder are guilty as charged but suggests it and once again illustrates that
the system often apply the crime control views showing that pre-trial is often
seen as a synonymous of guilt. Bail may a be refused for crime-prevention
purposes due to the accused’s previous convictions, but a person’s record does
tell us about inclination to behave in a particular manner in the future, but
it cannot be refused on the basis that solely by virtue of being charged with
this crime. Following the crime control values, it is reasonable to conclude that
an accused might commit ‘further crimes’ while awaiting trial but in other hand,
while the strength of the case against the accused can be considered in
determining the risk of flight, fail should not be denied solely on the
strength of the case.
The presumption of innocence tells us that if conditions are to be imposed in
granting bail, these should be directed at ensuring that the trial takes place,
rather than being based on the presumption that the accused committed the crime
with which he is the presumption of innocence as a practical attitude also
means that where bail is refused and suspects are remanded in custody awaiting
trial, the conditions in which they are confined should reflect their
un-tried/presumptively innocent status. Thus they should be kept separate from
convicted prisoners, allowed to wear their own clothes, be entitled to more
generous visiting hours, and have greater access to legal advisors. To regards
due process values, prior to trial or following an acquittal, there should be
no comments made by police, prosecutors or judges which give the impression
that the accused is in fact guilty of committing the crime.

As
mentioned above, due process is included in both stop and search procedures and
pre- trials procedures. Currently even with the introduction of PACE, the
ethnic which is more likely to be stopped and search is still black people.
According to the Independent, the 2016/2017 figures show that comparing with
white people, black people is 8 times more likely to be stopped. The
introduction of PACE was followed by the due process values but as seen, crime
control takes over and there is still a discrepancy between the stop and search
figures. In regards of pre-trial, due process valued are well implemented when
it come to treating the suspect which hasn’t been convicted but the assumption
of guilty and denial of bail show that crime control is still present in the
system. Crime control values are often found in more serious cases, due to the
suspects behavior and etc.. In these cases where crime control is spotted, the
privilege of bail is often denied but for everything there must be a balance
between crime control and due process values in order for a more efficient
performance of the Justice system.

 

x

Hi!
I'm Erica!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out