Thispiece of work will discuss to what extent pre – trials procedures trials andstop 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 withthe police in certain aspects generally due to miscarriages of justice and theprevious cases of controversy, they accentuate the impartiality on the trialproceedings and supervise the evidenced presented and cross examination. DueProcess supports the idea that it should be avenue of appeal and a structure ofappeals courts and mechanism abut in other hand this process is often describedas an obstacle course to the justice when it comes to convicting suspects.

  Primarily,the police powers in regards of stop, search and detain with reasonablesuspicion for any unlawful wrong doing was confined to London and other citieswith a local legislation to the main purpose. The “ways and means Act” wasoften used by the police in zones where such power did not exist. This act wasa code word for deceit to acquire compliance from those they wished to stop andsearch. However, Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which questionably woundup noticeably known as the ‘sus’ law, empowered police to stop and pursuitcertain people they associated with frequenting or standing around in an openplace with purpose to confer an arrestable offense.  The 1970s saw a developing drive for morenoteworthy police responsibility in targeting black men when it come to stopand search procedures especially youthful black men progressively protested theway and recurrence with which they were stopped and search.

PACE was introduced to ensure that individuals were not arbitrarily detainedby legal authorities which also re-enforced the due process views; Pace alsohad a tremendous impact on stop and search, by including in the Pace Code thatindividual must only go through stop and search with a reason suspicion. Paceprovides a comprehensive set of laws that govern the detention of theindividual by the police officer. A police officer can arrest an individualwhom they suspect of an arrestable offence or is about to commit an arrestableoffence, as long there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion.

The policeofficer is arresting an individual must inform of the reasons for arrest (PACE28) at the time of or as soon as practicable. The individual must also becautioned which sets out that a person has the right to silence but silence canbe 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 ofdetention is counted from or 24 hours after detention, whichever is theearliest (PACE 41); the individual must be released 24 hours after detention ifno charge is brought or if lengthened detention is authorized.

Detention can beextended to 36 hours by a superintendent if he has reasonable grounds thatfulfil section 42. Once again this adheres to due process values. If theprosecution fails to bring a charge, then there should be no reason the keepthe suspect arrested.

However, there are problems with PACE, such as the rightto silence and the implication that if one refuses to talk this implies guilt; Duringstop and search, if the suspect is taken into custody, he has the right ofsilence but unfortunately practicing this right implies guilty and illustratesthat the legislation protects crime control at any cost rather than due process. This section of article is imperative to the whole pre-trial process anda system of fair and how much they adhere to due process, because if one had toprove they were not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then the consequences aretoo high. This is a fundamental right which is common to all democratic systemsand a keystone of justice. If this basic right was not present, then therewould not be any fair criminal hearing. However, the English System has comeunder a lot of fire in respect to the right of silence, which is a keystone inthe due process values, because under English Law silence can be equated toguilt if the crime control is considered or self-incrimination if the dueprocess is utilized. The leading case on this point is Murray (John) vUK where the arrested individual argued that he should have aninherent right to silence, akin to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

It was argued that the English judiciary cannot imply guilt or adverseinferences from silence:to subverting the presumption of innocenceand the onus of proof resulting from that presumption: it is for theprosecution to prove the accused’s guilt without any assistance from the latterbeing acquired. There is also a presumption infavor of bail in both English and is often explained as being required by theright to liberty. As we have seen, however, a convicted person has no suchright, thus following the due process values the presumption of innocence againreminds us that since an accused is not to be treated as if he has already beenfound guilty, pre-trial incarceration cannot be justified on the basis that theaccused ‘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 thepast, ascertained behavior (the failure turn up for a trial) which justifiesthe denial of bail, rather than an assumption that they are guilty of thiscurrent charge. In the case of serious crimes such as murder, it may bereasonable to base bail decisions on generalizations: this is because there isa perception that people who are bailed on a charge of murder often attempt toabscond, therefore jurisdiction may adopt a policy of remanding in custody allwho face such charges. This does not imply that all of those who are accused ofmurder are guilty as charged but suggests it and once again illustrates thatthe system often apply the crime control views showing that pre-trial is oftenseen as a synonymous of guilt. Bail may a be refused for crime-preventionpurposes due to the accused’s previous convictions, but a person’s record doestell us about inclination to behave in a particular manner in the future, butit cannot be refused on the basis that solely by virtue of being charged withthis crime.

Following the crime control values, it is reasonable to conclude thatan accused might commit ‘further crimes’ while awaiting trial but in other hand,while the strength of the case against the accused can be considered indetermining the risk of flight, fail should not be denied solely on thestrength of the case.The presumption of innocence tells us that if conditions are to be imposed ingranting bail, these should be directed at ensuring that the trial takes place,rather than being based on the presumption that the accused committed the crimewith which he is the presumption of innocence as a practical attitude alsomeans that where bail is refused and suspects are remanded in custody awaitingtrial, the conditions in which they are confined should reflect theirun-tried/presumptively innocent status. Thus they should be kept separate fromconvicted prisoners, allowed to wear their own clothes, be entitled to moregenerous visiting hours, and have greater access to legal advisors. To regardsdue process values, prior to trial or following an acquittal, there should beno comments made by police, prosecutors or judges which give the impressionthat the accused is in fact guilty of committing the crime. Asmentioned above, due process is included in both stop and search procedures andpre- trials procedures. Currently even with the introduction of PACE, theethnic which is more likely to be stopped and search is still black people.According to the Independent, the 2016/2017 figures show that comparing withwhite people, black people is 8 times more likely to be stopped.

Theintroduction of PACE was followed by the due process values but as seen, crimecontrol takes over and there is still a discrepancy between the stop and searchfigures. In regards of pre-trial, due process valued are well implemented whenit come to treating the suspect which hasn’t been convicted but the assumptionof guilty and denial of bail show that crime control is still present in thesystem. Crime control values are often found in more serious cases, due to thesuspects behavior and etc.. In these cases where crime control is spotted, theprivilege of bail is often denied but for everything there must be a balancebetween crime control and due process values in order for a more efficientperformance of the Justice system.



I'm Erica!

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

Check it out