Nottingham's PCSOs have just been given a new power to detain suspects for a period of time. I suppose that helps them to do the job that's asked of them in a more effective manner. After all they are going to be used more and more in the future if the Government continues to provide funding for them at the current rate.
Eventually the Government and the Police top brass are going to have to grasp the thorny issue of whether or not these PCSOs are 'police officers' or not. As they currently stand they are clearly not warranted Constables but as their powers and authority grows they will attain a status not too far removed from what we currently think of as being Constables.
One of the more problematic issues is that of whether or not PCSOs should be given batons, sprays and handcuffs. In some parts of the Country they already get to handcuff people, but what about the other items? Ask PCSOs if they want such things and you will find them divided. Ask most Police Officers and they are against the idea that non-warranted persons should be allowed to carry a defensive weapon of ay sort. Ask ACPO and they will tell you that if a Chief Constable wants his PCSOs to carry batons they can do so, perfectly legally without waiting for any new legislation to be introduced. How is that possible you ask?
The ordinary man in the street will for the first time since 1953 ask a very simple question when he sees a PCSO carrying CS or a truncheon. He will want to know how come those 'civvies' are allowed to carry defensive weapons when he and his wife is not.
Well firstly you have to ask what makes it illegal to carry a truncheon in public in the first place. In English Law things are legal UNLESS they are specifically legislated against. So if it is illegal for you or I to carry a baton in public, but not for a Police Constable or a PCSO then there must be legislation prohibiting the 'civilian' carriage of truncheons. Putting aside for the sake of argument the fact that our Police force is in fact a civilian force and our Constables are 'citizens in uniform'.
Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to have with you a weapon designed to cause injury, in a public place without Lawful Authority or a reasonable excuse. So unless you dont have the necessary Lawful Authority or reasonable excuse then its perfectly lawful for 'anyone' to carry a truncheon and that it is not restricted to only the Police or those with the permission of the Police. Firearms are different, you need the Police's consent before you can have one.
The Prevention of Crime Act is an Act of Parliament designed to stop the thug and the ruffian on the fringes of society from terrorising their communities with knuckledusters, coshes and knives.
Here is what Parliament was told about the Prevention of Crime Bill;
The Home Secretary Sir Maxwell Fyffe, (a sponsor) said in the Commons ; " it is not the intention of the Bill to place in peril (of breaking the law) the innocent citizen pursuing his or her daily round".
Hansard, 26 Feb. 1953.
If a woman has reasonable cause for thinking she was going in danger of her life, she can carry a weapon. There is no absolute prohibition".
Lord Lloyd, Hansard, 14 April 1953.
You will note that the Prevention of Crime Act did not create any new authority for the Police only to carry truncheons. It would have been a simple matter for Parliament to use the phrase 'Crown Servants' or 'Police or Military only' but they did not. The two quotes above prove that they picked their words carefully and never intended to limit the right of the ordinary citizen to carry a defensive weapon in the way that the Police and the CPS would have you believe.
The 1953 Act does not require or create any sort of mechanism to allow the Police to give some people permission to carry a truncheon or to deny it to others. This is not the Firearms Act afterall.
Yes but, where is the necessary lawful authority for ordinary citizens? The answer is of course the Bill of Rights 1689.
In England can you have a higher form of Lawful Authority than an Act of Parliament?
PCSOs, the man taking his savings to the Bank, the Police Constable or the humble dog walker all share the Common Law right to have defensive weapons. The difference between the PCSO and the Police Constable and everyone else is that they also need the permission of their Chief Constable to carry a truncheon whilst on duty. That is not because of some special legislation giving the Police a special right but because each Chief Constable is responsible for his or her Constables actions whilst on duty. The ordinary citizen needs only to be guided by legislation.
So how can the Bill of Rights and the Prevention of Crime Act be compatible? What was the point of the 1953 Act if the earlier Act is still valid?
The Bill of Rights is a Constitutional Act so cannot be repealed by implication. Also the 1953 does not even imply any such repeal of the BoR. Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act ALLOWS for any earlier Lawful Authority to carry defensive weapons. It would have only repealed the BoR if it had of used the term 'Crown Servants' for example.
The whole point of the Prevention of Crime Act was to target the thug or the ruffian…these types of offender are unlikely to know of the Bill of Rights plus a man with previous convictions for violence would have a far harder time proving his innocence than the law abiding person going about his daily rounds that the Home Secretary clearly pointed out would not be covered by the Act in any case.
Violent crime is on the increase, the law abiding are frightened into not carrying any sort of effective defensive weapon and the thugs and ruffians on the fringes of society know that their next victim is unlikely to resist their unlawful demands.
Tell me, how does that prevent crime?
