The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 - Assignment Example

PART ONE – A The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 PACE 1984 deals with the powers and duties of the police. Its principal objective is to establish a balance between the rights of individuals and the powers of the police (Home Office). In general, arrests for specific criminal offences are authorized by section 24 of PACE, as amended by the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act, 2005 or SOCPA. As such, any arrest made in the absence of an explicit legal authority is unlawful. Moreover, section 58 of PACE requires the custody officer to specify the reason behind the detention to the detainee; and section 31 of Code C, makes it mandatory for the police to inform the detainee about his rights. Section 56 of PACE 1984, requires a person close to the detained person to be informed of such arrest and detention. This right ensures that the detained person is not deprived of communication. In our case Roy’s detention was not informed to his father, despite his repeated insistence, and this rendered him incommunicado; which makes his detention unlawful. In our present problem, Roy had been arrested by the police on the basis of indistinct CCTV images. Furthermore, it is very difficult to identify the images of people that have been recorded by the CCTV cameras (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2002). The 1998 House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Report Digital Images as Evidence had decided that it was left to the discretion of the courts, to allow or disallow digital images as evidence (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2002). Covert surveillance operations are governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or the RIPA (Hannibal & Mountford, Lpc Handbook on Criminal Litigation 2007 – 2008, 2007. P. 95). Hence, Roy’s arrest was unlawful, since, the police had not taken any of the measures specified by the House of Lords, in this context. Article 6(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights or ECHR requires fairness in trials to individuals. The right to legal assistance to the accused is a very important right. It prevents the police from using the statements and behaviour of the interrogated person, as evidence against him during the court trial. The suspect can require a solicitor to assist him during such interrogation (Davis, 2003. P99). In our problem, Roy had not been provided with legal assistance, prior to questioning by the police. This is a gross breach of the provisions of the ECHR and PACE. Moreover, any unlawful action by the police constitutes wrongful and improper use of power or authority. The Court held that any breach of the Act or Codes to be oppression (Fenwick & Fenwick, Howard Davis. Civil Liberties and Human Rights, 2004. p 224). Roy was undergoing a severe migraine attack when he was arrested and despite his great suffering he was subjected to prolonged and intense interrogation. His protests were ignored and he was informed that the oppression would be terminated only if he confessed. Thus, the confession made by Roy can be deemed to be the consequence of oppression, as per section 76(8) of PACE. PART ONE – B The PACE 1984 and Codes C and E regulate the conduct of police interviews; specify the duties of the police and the rights of the detainees. It is the objective of this regulatory process to ensure that the evidence obtained is reliable and equitable. Furthermore, evidence based on confessions can be challenged under sections 76(2)(a) or (b) and section 82(3) of the PACE 1984, if its obtention had infringed the Act or the Codes of Practice (Hannibal & Mountford, Lpc Handbook on Criminal Litigation 2007-2008, 2007. P.68). Section 76(1) of the Act permits a detainee’s confession to be admitted as evidence against him. However, it should not have been obtained by oppressive measures or due to the presence of oppressive circumstances at the time of obtaining the confession. These confessions are admitted by the courts, if the prosecution can establish that the oppressive circumstances, alleged by the defence were absent (Confessions). Roy was interrogated in an oppressive manner. Hence, the confession made by him to the police, is inadmissible as evidence. In Fulling (1987), the Court of Appeal defined oppression as the exercise of excessive power or authority in a burdensome, harsh or wrongful manner by the police (Regina v Fulling , 1987). Section 78 of the PACE, empowers the courts to allow or disallow improperly obtained evidence. The courts disallow such evidence, because it could adversely affect fair proceedings of the case. As such, no individual can be arrested unlawfully; and detention after such arrest will also be unlawful. Section 37(2) of the PACE empowers the police to detain a suspect for questioning; provided the police have substantive reasons for suspecting that individual (Fenwick & Fenwick, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, 2004. P. 207). In our case, the police did not have any substantive reason to arrest Roy. In R v Mason, the court ruled that section 78 can be applied to confessions, similar to the manner in which it can be applied to other forms of evidence (Christopher, 2001. P209). In Delaney, subjection to emotional distress made the defendant anxious to terminate the interview (R. v. Delaney, 1988). In addition, the police officers misled him by suggesting that his offence was not all that serious; and that if he confessed they would arrange psychiatric help (Fenwick & Fenwick, Howard Davis. Civil Liberties and Human Rights, 2004. p 224). Roy’s confession had been obtained under duress, in an unlawful manner, and in the absence of a legal advisor or any relation. Hence, the prosecution cannot utilize his confession as evidence in the proceedings against him. As such, PACE attempts to provide due respect for the rights and freedom of individuals, and ensure the proper application of the powers of the police (Home Office). Moreover, Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the ECHR protect the suspected detainees’ rights and freedom from the unauthorized use of power by the police (Liberty Guide to Human Rights). PART TWO – A The Sale of Goods Act 1979 safeguards and provides remedial measures to buyers in business transactions. Section 14(2) of this Act provides that the goods purchased must be of good quality. This implied term applies to the sale of goods in the normal course of business. There are certain statutory implied terms that are applicable to the supply of goods under a contract; which require the goods supplied to be of satisfactory quality, to reasonably serve the purpose for which they had been purchased by the buyer and conformity to their description (Section 14(2). Sale of Goods Act 1979). As such, under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Gina can reject the dishwasher and demand a full refund of the price, paid by her to Caspers Ltd, because the dishwasher was not of a satisfactory quality. In Godley v Perry, the court held that any defect that renders goods unsafe for use makes it unsatisfactory (Godley v. Perry). In Lambert v Lewis, the court held that the coupling of a Landrover had failed within a period of seventeen months from its purchase, which was not a reasonable period of time. This constituted a breach of the implied term of durability (Lambert v. Lewis). The defective thermostat served to render the dishwasher purchased by Gina unsuitable for use; hence, there was a breach of the implied term of durability. The Act provides several remedies for infringement of contract of sale; like, repair, replacement, partial or total refund of the price and rejection of the goods. If a defect occurs within six months of purchase of the goods, then it is assumed that such defect had been present at the time of the purchase of goods (Section 48 A (3), Sale of Goods Act , 1979). Hence, Gina can either reject the contract or claim a full refund in addition to a claim for damages, against the seller. Contracts involving the sale of goods generally include an implied term, which requires the goods sold to the buyer to be suitable for the purpose for which the buyer had bought the goods and the intimation of this purpose to the seller (Section 14(3). Sale of Goods Act ). The purpose for which goods are purchased may be either implied or expressed. If the buyer purchases the goods for only one purpose, then he need not ascertain the suitability of those goods for the intended purpose (Preist v Last (1903)). Gina had an implied contract with the seller, whereby the goods purchased should be of satisfactory quality and serve the purpose adequately. However, the dishwasher purchased by her proved to be defective; hence she can sue Caspers Ltd, for the damage caused to her property, and can seek a replacement of the dishwasher or a refund of the amount paid by her, while purchasing the dishwasher. PART TWO – B The Supply of Goods And Services Act 1982 protects buyers who incur loss due to poor craftsmanship of the goods. Almost all the contracts in which the supplier provides some sort of service in his natural course of business come under the scope of this Act. Implied terms with regard to service are covered by sections 13 and 15 of the Supply of Goods And Services Act 1982. Under the provisions of section 13 of the Act, the supplier of goods and services is required to employ sufficient skill and undertake sufficient care, while providing the specified service (Kelly, Holmes, & Hayward, 2005. P. 237). Hence, Gina can sue Reg for his poor quality professional services. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, provides consumers with a right to reject the goods in case they are found to be defective or to claim compensation, if the goods are defective and unfit for the purpose for which they were manufactured. Under these Regulations, consumers can seek a replacement, repair or a partial or full refund of the price paid by them (Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002). Under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, liability covers components and raw materials. Defective finished products that entail a malfunctioning part render the manufacturer of the component, as well as the product manufacturer liable. Moreover, this Act allows an individual to claim compensation for death, personal injury and damage to private property that exceeds £275 (Consumer Protection Act 1987). In our present problem, Gina suffered a loss to her property worth £600, due to a defective thermostat in her dishwasher. Therefore, she can sue the manufacturer of the dishwasher, namely Webb plc, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In order to establish negligence, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the manufacturer owed him a duty of care, which had been breached and that the consequence was recoverable damages. In Donoghue v Stevenson the court held that the manufacturer was responsible for the breach of his duty, owed to the consumer (Donoghue v Stevenson , 1932). Since, the manufacturer provided a defective thermostat, he had breached his duty of care towards Gina; moreover, the damage caused was recoverable, hence he is liable for the loss caused to Gina, by his dishwasher. As such, Gina can claim damages from the manufacturer, because the dishwasher proved to be unfit for use, within a short period of its purchase. According to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the work done and the products supplied by tradesmen and professionals should be of satisfactory quality. Hence, Gina can prefer a claim against Reg for the defective pipework and inadequate services rendered, while fitting the pipework. In addition to the Sale of Goods Act and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, also protect the rights of the consumer (Sale of Goods Act 1979 - A Guide ). List of References Christopher, A. (2001. P209). Practical Guide to Evidence. Cavendish Publishing. ISBN:1843143089 . Confessions. (n.d.). Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/confessions.htm Consumer Protection Act 1987. (n.d.). Davis, H. (2003. P99). Human Rights and Civil Liberties. Willan Publishing. ISBN: 1843920085. Donoghue v Stevenson , AC 562 (House of Lords 1932). Fenwick, H., & Fenwick, D. (2004. P. 207). Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Routledge Cavendish. Civil rights. ISBN:1859417701. Fenwick, H., & Fenwick, D. (2004. p 224). Howard Davis. Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Routledge Cavendish. ISBN: 1859417701. Godley v. Perry, (1960) 1 All ER 36 QB. Hannibal, M., & Mountford, L. (2007. P. 95). Lpc Handbook on Criminal Litigation 2007 – 2008. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0199212325. Hannibal, M., & Mountford, L. (2007. P.68). Lpc Handbook on Criminal Litigation 2007-2008. Oxford University Press Law ISBN: 0199212325. Home Office. (n.d.). Operational Policing . Retrieved June 17, 2008, from Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and accompanying Codes of Practice: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/ Kelly, D., Holmes, A., & Hayward, R. (2005. P. 237). Business Law. 5th Edition. Cavendish Publishing. Lambert v. Lewis, (1980) 1 All E.R. 978. Liberty Guide to Human Rights. (n.d.). Rights of Suspects in the Police Station. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-rights-of-suspects/the-rights-of-suspects-in-the-police-station/rights-of-suspects-in-the-police-station.shtml Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2002, April). Postnote: CCTV. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn175.pdf Preist v Last (1903), 2 KB148. R. v. Delaney, 88 Cr. App. R. 338 (1988). Regina v Fulling , 2 All E.R. 65. (1987). Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. (n.d.). Sale of Goods Act 1979 - A Guide . (n.d.). Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.scavenger.net/product.php?productid=1616 Section 14(2). Sale of Goods Act 1979. (n.d.). Section 14(3). Sale of Goods Act . (n.d.). Section 48 A (3), Sale of Goods Act , 1979. (n.d.). Read More