How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Ash Your Own Question

Ash
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10916
Experience:  Solicitor with 5+ years experience
75100385
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ash is online now

I was arrested back in 2011. The reasons the police gave

Resolved Question:

Hi, I was arrested back in 2011. The reasons the police gave for the arrest made no sense, too trivial. I complained and they stuck to their guns. I appealed to the IPCC who agreed the basis I had been told was unlikely but said the Police had told them
of other allegations which justified the arrest. However, they steadfastly refused to tell me exactly what those other allegations were. I sued them under the Human Rights Act on the grounds that in failing to tell me why I was arrested they were in breach
of my convention rights to be told the reasons for my arrest. I know it might seem more logical to use the Police, but the HRA does not distinguish and the Police have never admitted they had not given me the whole reasons. However, where I am at now is that
my claim has been struck out as it "discloses no identifiable grounds in law". When I read the HRA its pretty clear I have a right to be told "THE" reasons for my arrest, i.e. the full reasons. The IPCC is a public authority so bound by the Act. It has admitted
it knows the full reasons and admitted it has not disclosed those reasons to me. Where do I go? Do I start again phrasing the claim in different way? Or do I appeal the strike out (if so, what form do I need). thanks
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
The reason it has been struck out is that the HRA doesn't apply here.
What are you actually hoping to claim for?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I am suffering from depression over this. I was arrested and can't understand why. In the first instance I simply want to know the full reasons why I was arrested. If it turns out I did something silly then I will have to accept it, but if false allegations were made I will deal with that, or if the police were unreasonable I will deal with that. But I cannot begin to get this out of my head without first knowing the reason for the arrest. The IPCC have said they know and have refused to tell me what they know. I thought it was my right under the HRA to be told. Where have I gone wrong and how can I find out the real reason? Thanks
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
OK.
But what is your claim?
For what wrong?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Hi Jo, the wrong is not being told the truth about why I was arrested when the IPCC claim to know the true reasons but will not tell me. I suffer psychological harm by not knowing why I was arrested - something that had it become public knowledge would have destroyed my livelihood. I no longer feel comfortable around the Police, since it seems to me they act arbitrarily. I thought the HR Convention established my right to be told why I was arrested in recognition of the fact that generally people would feel harmed if they were arrested and no reason was given. As I said before, it may be I suffered the wrong of being falsely accused or of wrongful arrest, but it may be that I did something silly that I do not recall. Until and unless I can correct the wrong of not being told why I was arrested I cannot correct the other wrongs, if it is appropriate to so do. Make sense?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Thanks.
I think we have looked at this before? I am really sorry but I'm afraid you are barking up the wrong tree.
There is just plain no claim here. They had grounds to arrest you. They only need the barest suspicion. The fact that they might not have been entirely frank and candid does not mean that the arrest is unlawful.
Not being told everything in their possession is not civil wrong.
You can seek orders forcing them to disclose information but you have to show that you have a claim with which it will assist and you just plain do not.
I'm very sorry.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Jo
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thanks, ***** ***** if I said I need the information from the IPCC in order to enable me to sue the police for wrongful arrest does that count as a claim? I am a bit puzzled that breaching convention rights and causing psychological harm cannot be the basis of a civil claim, if you could help me to understand that I would be grateful.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Well, it may but the problem here is that there is no claim for wrongful arrest.
As I mentioned on your other post, this is not a breach of the Convention.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Please could you explain why it is not a breach of the convention? Thanks
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
The HRA isn't relevant here.
There is no breach.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I'm really sorry, can I not ask for an explanation why not? The HRA appears to the layman to say that I have a right to be told the reasons for my arrest. It is conceded that I was not told the reasons. I find it hard to see why that is not a breach. Thanks
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
The HRA does not say anything about having the right to be told the reasons for your arrest.
The only right comes from PACE and that says that you must be told the offence for which you are arrested.
The reason there is no breach is that indeed you were told the offence for which you were arrested.
You do not have a right to be give every piece of information the police have at the time of arrest.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Hi Jo, sorry about the delay I was out all day. Article 5 of Schedule 1 says that "Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly ... Of the reasons for his arrest. Clause 6 says "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right" ( as set out in Schedule 1 ). Clause 7 says " a person who claims that a public authority has acted in a way which is made unlawful by clause 6 .... May bring proceedings against the authority under this act". As a layman it all seems clearly set out, what is the flaw in my reading of the HRA? Thanks
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
But the enactment is in PACE and they have complied.
You do not have a claim
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
sorry, I don't understand what you are saying, it's sounds like you are saying the HRA is not "enacted". Does it say somewhere in stature that if a human right is expressed in a particular type of law you lose the general right? What is it about the logic that I set out earlier that is wrong or contradicted elsewhere? BTW PACE only applies to the police, my complaint is against the IPCC which is a public authority and so bound by HRA but not by PACE.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 1 year ago.
Ok.
Best of luck with this.
I will opt out as there is nothing I can add.
There is no claim because you were told the reason for your arrest. Not are trying to interpret the law to mean that they have to tell you everything in their minds and that is just plain incorrect.
I am very sorry.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I do not know why you say that. The IPCC in its report on my appeal said that the police had not given me the reasons for the arrest. But the IPCC then refused to tell me what those reasons were claiming that data protection law protected my accuser. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. The HRA says I can bring proceedings against a public authority which breaches the rights set out in the schedule, so where is the absence of claim?
Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
It seems the professional has left this conversation. This happens occasionally, and it's usually because the professional thinks that someone else might be a better match for your question. I've been working hard to find a new professional to assist you with your question, but sometimes finding the right professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're OK with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you.
Thank you!
Nicola
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Hi Nicola, thanks, ***** ***** fine, I just need somebody to give me an explanation.
Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you.
Thank you for your patience,
Nicola
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thank you, ***** ***** expert said the human rights act did not apply, I am just asking for someone to explain to me why not.
Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you.
Thank you for your patience,
Nicola
Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
I apologise as we have not yet been able to find a Professional to assist you. Do you wish for me to continue to search for someone to assist you or would you like for us to close your question at this time?
Thank you for your patience,
Nicola
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Please continue thanks
Expert:  Nicola-mod replied 1 year ago.
Hello,
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you.
Thank you for your patience,
Nicola
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Hello my name is ***** ***** I will help you. Do you still need help?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Hi Alex, yes please, do you have access to the history of the question? I'll assume for the moment that you do... the previous expert told me that I had no claim - which I had already been told by the judge - but I asked the question to understand why not. The other expert said that there was no right under the Human Rights Act to be told why one was arrested but when I read article 5 I see the statement that one should be told why one was arrested so I cannot understand where that expert was coming from. My naive litigant person logic is that the article says I have a right to be given the reasons for my arrest, the IPCC made a finding that I was not, they claimed to know the reasons, it seems to me that they should tell me and I should have a claim if they dont. FYI I am making the claim against the IPCC because they are on record as saying that I was not told the reasons for my arrest, the police have not at this stage admitted to that. Hope this makes sense, just seeking understanding, thanks
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
So they never told you why you were arrested?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
No. They said one thing then another. Made no sense. My solicitor at the time thought I had been arrested because I had made a number of successful complaints against the police and they had a grudge. I made a complaint about how the arrest and they gave some reasons which made no sense so I appealed. The IPCC agreed with me that the reasons given were not the real reasons. But they said that the police had told them of further information that was the real reason for the arrest. But then the IPCC refused to tell me what this further information was, claiming that to tell me would infringe somebody else's data protection rights. I thought my human right to know the allegations against me that lead to my arrest trumped the allegers data protection rights so sued under article 5 of the HRA, but the judge struck me out saying there were no identifiable grounds in law. That's the but I'm trying to understand. Where have I gone wrong? Don't I have a right to be told? Don't I have a right to sue to demand that I be told? Is it that I can't sue the IPCC even though they know, they are withholding and they are a public authority? I just don't get it. Thanks
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
I assume you are saying they were negligent?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Let's leave the police out of this. I have no grounds for saying anything until I know why I was arrested. Clearly it's odd that the police haven't said exactly why, but they have not admitted that. But the IPCC have admitted that the arrest was founded on information/allegations that were not disclosed to me which is why it seems logical to me to sue them as I start with that admission. As I read the HRA any public authority is bound to comply with the articles. Clearly if they could not comply it's moot. But here the IPCC have admitted both that they know and that they have not told me. Do I have a right to be told the reasons for my arrest under HRA or not, if not, please explain why not given the text of the act suggests I do. If I have that right, is there any reason why it's not enforceable against the IPCC? If not, why not as I can't see that exclusion in the act. Many thanks, peter
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Yes its enforceable against the Police and IPCC. This means both the Police who made the original decision and IPCC are bound by the Act.
Does that clarify?
Alex
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Yes, that makes a lot more sense than what the other expert said. So what I am trying to understand is why the judge said that I had no identifiable grounds in law. It could be, of course, that a busy judge did not understand the case, and my inexperience could be the cause of that, but can you think of any other flaw in my claim that I wish the IPCC to be ordered to give me the reasons for my arrest which they claim to know and which they accept they have not told me? Many thanks
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
Rights can be qualified under the Human Rights Act, but you can bring a claim. If the Judge said you could not then you should appeal but you only have 21 days to do that.
Alex
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Hi Alex, many thanks for that, makes more sense to me than the judges ruling or what the other expert said. I have my appeal ready - a particular point is that the court made the ruling before 14 days after the defendant had responded and within that time ( and before the ruling) I had submitted further evidence clearing up the confusion created by the defendant but the court failed to put the further evidence before the judge. I don't want to push my luck and understand if you cannot comment on other experts but if I may ask one final question - would you have any idea why the other expert said that the HRA did not apply here?
Expert:  Ash replied 1 year ago.
I dont know sadly. All I can do is say I think it does apply.
If this answers your question might I ask you to rate my answer before you go today please, the button should be at the bottom of the screen.
If you need more help please click reply.
Alex
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10916
Experience: Solicitor with 5+ years experience
Ash and other Law Specialists are ready to help you

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
< Previous | Next >
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
  • A quick response, a succinct and helpful answer in simple English. I believe I can now confront the counter party with confidence -- worth the 30 bucks! Rick
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C.
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Jo C.

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    30316
    Over 5 years in practice
< Previous | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/EM/emus/2015-7-7_192327_bigstockportraitofconfidentfemale.64x64.jpg Jo C.'s Avatar

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    30316
    Over 5 years in practice
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BE/benjones/2015-12-1_0437_ennew.64x64.jpg Ben Jones's Avatar

    Ben Jones

    UK Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    11553
    Qualified Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BU/Buachaill/2012-5-25_211156_barrister5.64x64.jpg Buachaill's Avatar

    Buachaill

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    1754
    Barrister 17 years experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JO/jojobi/2013-3-19_0265_maxlowryphoto.64x64.jpg Max Lowry's Avatar

    Max Lowry

    Advocate

    Satisfied Customers:

    894
    LLB, 10 years post qualification experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/UK/UKLawyer/2012-4-12_9849_F2.64x64.jpg UK_Lawyer's Avatar

    UK_Lawyer

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    750
    I am a qualified solicitor and an expert in UK law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/KA/Kasare/kasare.64x64.jpg Kasare's Avatar

    Kasare

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    402
    Solicitor, 10 yrs plus experience in civil litigation, employment and family law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/OS/osh/2015-7-7_19268_gettyimagesb.64x64.jpg Joshua's Avatar

    Joshua

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    8199
    LL.B (Hons), Higher Prof. Dip. Law & Practice
 
 
 

Related Law Questions