21

Several years ago I was stopped in public by the police. Someone had 'identified' me as abusing them in terms of their gender two years before that. Had that happened, I suppose it would have been classified as a hate crime. In fact, it was a case of mistaken identity and a senior police officer phoned me the next morning to say so and apologise.

My concern was that, although the previous day I had fully co-operated with the police, one of them said, "We will not arrest you yet, but you will have to come in for an interview". There was no interview because the case was dropped the following morning. There was certainly no arrest or any further proceedings of any kind.

However I was quite shocked with the idea that I could perhaps have been arrested on the grounds of an allegation, merely because someone else made the accusation without any evidence other than their own word.

Question

Is it the case in the UK that someone could call the police and have someone arrested merely on the basis of an accusation of a verbal hate crime, even though there is no evidence whatsoever apart from the word of the accuser?

EDIT

The accusation was something like, "Two years ago this person said hateful things to me about my being transgender". That's all I ever found out. The accuser didn't name me because they didn't know the name of the person who said it. Apparently it was a chance encounter in the street but I don't know the details and the police wouldn't tell me. The accuser had spotted me walking in the street and called the police based on that.

chasly - supports Monica
  • 1,055
  • 7
  • 15
  • 12
    To arrest without a warrant in the UK, the police needs reasonable grounds to suspect the guilt of the suspect, or e.g. that it is unlikely that the the suspect would voluntarily appear for an interview at a police station. Witness testimony is evidence, the police must make a professional decision if they consider it credible evidence. The headline of your question and the last line differ -- are you asking about accusation without evidence or accusation without evidence other than witness testimony? – o.m. Mar 02 '21 at 17:36
  • @o.m. - I didn't want to make the title too long but I've added another clause to it. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 02 '21 at 17:54
  • 16
    It seems insane to me that they would even consider following up on allegations like "Two years ago a stranger insulted me once and I think it was this person I just saw today." The bobbies don't have anything better to do with their time? – Ryan_L Mar 02 '21 at 18:05
  • 7
    @Ryan_L, do you want a beat cop to dismiss charges out of hand? They should take the name of the accuser, the name of the accused, and write things down. Which seems to have happened. – o.m. Mar 02 '21 at 19:12
  • @o.m. - What concerned me was that the officer said "I am not going to arrest you yet." My concern was whether he could in fact have arrested me there and then on the basis of the accusation. That's what I'm asking about. At the time I felt very vulnerable to think that I might have ended up in a cell just on someone else's say so. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 02 '21 at 19:46
  • 22
    Testimony is evidence. Lots of people don't get this but it is legally the case. "I might have ended up in a cell just on someone else's say so." This is correct and has been for pretty much of entire history of Western criminal law. – ohwilleke Mar 02 '21 at 21:54
  • 1
    @ohwilleke - That's pretty scary. I didn't even know the person and I presume it was simply an error. However it's disturbing to think that anyone could just accuse any random passer-by out of spite or on a whim and cause them to be arrested. If we all started doing that, chaos would result. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 02 '21 at 23:17
  • 3
    @chasly-supportsMonica Scary or not, it is the law and always has been. There are punishments for intentionally falsely accusing someone and there are legal methods by which one can obtain pre-trial release pending trial, and in practice, making misstatements that result in wrongful arrests isn't terribly common so the parade of horribles isn't likely. But a large share (maybe 25%-65% of arrests, there aren't good statistics) are based solely on testimony and often solely on testimony of an accuser. – ohwilleke Mar 02 '21 at 23:46
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – feetwet Mar 03 '21 at 17:21
  • 2
    @ohwilleke While what you've said is true, it's important also to be realistic. Evidence consisting solely of witness testimony from a single person about a few seconds long encounter than took place 2 years ago in a passing encounter on the street, vs. the defendant's testimony that it wasn't them, is very unlikely to satisfy the criminal standard of proof. Before it even gets to that stage CPS will need to be convinced that there is a realistic prospect of conviction. Then it's a matter of whether the police would be willing to arrest on such a hopeless case. – JBentley Mar 04 '21 at 10:56
  • Also consider that the cop might have made the whole thing up as an excuse to feel you out. He may have thought you looked suspicious and just wanted to interact for a bit. My son got pulled over once and the cop said, "A car matching your description was seen stealing a nuclear weapon from a military base. Can we search your car....?" He was just looking for drugs. – B. Goddard Mar 04 '21 at 15:14
  • "I had fully co-operated with the police" => definitely don't do this in the future. If questioned by the police, the only right answer is "I wish to remain silent and speak to an attorney". – JonathanReez Mar 04 '21 at 19:47
  • @B.Goddard "seen stealing a nuclear weapon?!" - LOL - That has to be the most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard. – reirab Mar 04 '21 at 20:31
  • @JonathanReez - Surely I can give them my name and contact details (which is what I did). Otherwise I presume they could arrest me on the grounds of obstructing their enquiries. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 04 '21 at 20:45
  • 1
    Yes, you should give them your name and ID, but answering any other questions should only be done after consulting with a lawyer – JonathanReez Mar 04 '21 at 21:14
  • @o.m. is a police report the same thing as witness testimony, though? If it is not given in a recorded interview or a courtroom, or a written witness statement/deposition? – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Sep 22 '22 at 21:42
  • Cc. @ohwilleke . – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Sep 22 '22 at 21:47
  • 1
    @JosephP. A police report is hearsay. Hearsay is a legitimate basis for an arrest, however, and there are exceptions to the hearsay rule (especially in the U.K.). – ohwilleke Sep 22 '22 at 22:48

2 Answers2

21

Is mere accusation without evidence other than testimony of the accuser, grounds for arrest in the UK?

It depends on the circumstances, especially when dealing with non-recent allegations where independent and corroborative evidence may be difficult to locate and/or recover, but in my experience it is very rarely an option to arrest soley on the say-so of one complainant unless there is a compelling reason to do so. It's also fraught with potential risks - Operation Midland being a prime example of when it can go horribly wrong.

Also, no-one can "call the police and have someone arrested" in the - the police are under a duty to carry out a "proportionate investigation" in to allegations of crime and then make their own minds up on how to proceed based on the available intelligence and evidence.

Focussing on , the most commonly used power of arrest* is at s.24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which, along with PACE Code G, requires an officer to:

  1. Reasonably suspect that an offence is being, has been or will be committed.
  • On a scale of 0 to 10 - with 10 being total knowledge and 0 being no opinion at all - suspicion may be as low as 2 or 3 whereas belief starts at 7 or 8.
  1. And reasonably believe an arrest is necessary.
  • One commonly used mnemonic for the Necessity Test under s.24 is:

ID COP PLAN:

Investigation - prompt and effective investigation of offence or conduct

Disappearance - prevent prosecution being hindered by disappearance of a person

Child / Vulnerable person - protection of

Obstruction of highway

Physical injury to themselves or someone else

Public (in)decency

Loss or damage to property

Address not know

Name not known

I cannot say why the officer did not make an arrest in the OP's case. I surmise that he did not deem it necessary based on the above mandatory criteria but rather considered that a voluntary attendance interview would be the most appropriate course of action given the circumstances and information available to him at the time.

*There are other statutory and common-law powers of arrest, but they all follow the same procedures as above

12

Witness statements are a form of evidence. It depends on what the statement was, for example "Chasly committed a verbal hate crime" is not sufficient evidence for an arrest. Sworn testimony that Chasly performed specific act constituting a crime could be sufficient evidence, e.g. "I saw Chasly bludgeon that person to death". The officer has to have reasonable grounds for arresting a person, and that could be witness testimony.

user6726
  • 214,947
  • 11
  • 343
  • 576
  • The accusation was something like, "Two years ago this person said hateful things to me about my being transgender". That's all I ever found out. They didn't name me because they didn't know the name of the person who said it. Apparently it was a chance encounter in the street but I don't know the details and the police wouldn't tell me. – chasly - supports Monica Mar 02 '21 at 17:48
  • 6
    @chasly The police naturally won't give you more details, because it might let you identify the person and/or where they live. Protecting a victim's safety is a priority, so they were exactly right there. – Graham Mar 03 '21 at 09:07
  • pedantically, "witness statement is evidence" is true. But this type of statement has lately been used to justify much broader assertions (even suggesting that any accusation is factual evidence of a crime). I think when a person asks about accusations "without evidence", it is safe to assume that they mean without material evidence or a 3rd party eyewitness testimony. It's not common for people to phrase their question this carefully when speaking colloquially though. – grovkin Mar 06 '21 at 06:06
  • @Graham alleged victim. – grovkin Mar 06 '21 at 06:08
  • @grovkin Sure, if you like. It doesn't change the fact that protecting their safety should be a priority. That means the allegation has to be assumed true until proven otherwise. – Graham Mar 06 '21 at 07:27
  • @Graham ??? uhm. no. the accused are entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Absent any immediate threat to their safety, an accuser has to be available to be interviewed by the lawyers of the accused. And, of course, no one is entitled to anonymity when accusing someone of a crime. – grovkin Mar 06 '21 at 10:12
  • @grovkin The accuser is entitled to not be murdered by the person they're accusing. That's a pretty key part. And you do know that being held in remand literally involves imprisoning someone in case that happens, right? – Graham Mar 06 '21 at 22:25
  • @Graham the only reasons to hold someone in remand is if there is a credible risk that they will not show up for trial or if they pose an immediate risk. The latter one should be done in only the most extreme circumstances. No one has a right to accuse anyone of a crime anonymously. The lawyer for the accused should always be able to find out the accuser's identity. – grovkin Mar 07 '21 at 04:05