Section 60

[Col]

At the England match on Saturday me and my friends were questioned by the local police in what thye called a Section 60 procedure. I politelty co-operated with the respective policemen and answered the questions asked, I am not a hooligan nor my friends and we were happy to oblige. I have since read on the net that you should not give your name and other particular details as all information is held on record for seven years? Could anyone confirm the legal standing of the Section 60?

[kempie]

Originally brought in to combat football hooliganism, section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 effectively re-enacts the much-hated sus laws of the 1970s and 1980s.

It states: 'Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that: (a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area and (b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence, he may give an authorisation that the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles conferred by this section shall be exercisable at any place within that locality for a period not exceeding 24 hours.'

The Act empowers a police officer in a section 60 zone 'in the exercise of those powers, [to] stop any person or vehicle and make any search he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying weapons or articles of that kind'.

[Col]

Thanks however my query is whether there is any legality in the action of using a Section 60 on someone and whether base you have been served one does that imply suspicion.  What is the significance of the Section 60 being held on file?  I have read that you are not obliged to disclose personal details, if this is correct I will think twice about doing the same if this occurred again. 

[kempie]

I don't fully understand your query as stated.

Are you asking if a law is legal?

My last paragraph states that section 60 empowers the police to stop and search anybody whether there are grounds to suspect them or not and so no suspicion can be inferred after the fact, especially if no weapons were found upon your person.

[Col]

My query is I am aware that the Section 60 is a means of spot searching an individual by why is there a need to keep details of this search on record for 7 years especially when I am told that you have a right not to give your name etc.?

[kempie]

According to the Home Office website no details will be held on file against you unless you are charged with an offence.

[ledow]

Firstly, refusing to give your name to a police officer is a bit stupid anyway and more likely to make him a) suspicious and/or b) more likely to ask further questions and take up more of your time. This is just a general rule - it's like saying "No Comment". Yeah, you can do it but if you're innocent, it's a policeman asking and the question is reasonable, why would you?

Secondly, even if the information is kept (which I severely doubt), it's not a criminal charge or even an official caution, so this sort of information retention is pretty much harmless. It's not the sort of thing that would appear on a criminal record check, even the ultra-strict ones that you would go through to apply for jobs at schools and similar places.

Thirdly, well done on the polite co-operation. So many people dig theirselves a deeper hole by being unnecessarily stroppy. The politer and more reasonable you are, the more reasonable the police will be back. Cause them trouble and they *could* make you day hell. You want proof of this, watch any cop-reality-TV show.

[ledow]

I've also just been informed by a reliable legal source that refusing to give your name to a police officer on demand is actually an offence and they are then able to take you straight to a police station until you give your correct name. (this also applies if you tell him that you're Mickey Mouse or something equally as daft and can't prove that that's your real name).

[kempie]

Actually ledow under PACE and current legislation pertaining to Stop and Search there is no compunction for the 'detainee' to offer any information about their identity to the police, in fact the onus in the police to identify themselves and which station they are from.

That being said the police do ask that you at least offer your ethnicity so that they keep their statistics in order  - read my link above.

[Mistopheles]

I think you've misunderstood ledow - or he hasn't explained himself very well! It's not an offence as such not to give your name, but a policeman is within his rights to detain you if you refuse to give your name, until he is able to certify who you are. Kempie's stuff is absolutely right too though - the policeman does need to provide his name, station etc., otherwise any stop / search is unauthorised and CAN (not necessarily WILL) be thrown out of court should any charges arise.