Nickbat - Whilst I accept my analogy maybe slightly faulty, your thought process is flawed as well. The person in 'possession' of the stolen omegas may have no knowledge of them being stolen.
Imagine buying a nicked car - do you believe it is right that just because you are in possession of stolen items you should be prosecuted.
Of course not, guilty knowledge of the item being stolen needs to be proved.
The
suspect i.e. the person in possession needs to be interviewed legally (not Gene Hunt style) in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice.
Now apply this to the poor security guard who is the only person on site at the compound with 10 stolen omegas - is it right that he gets interviewed - yes, is it right then that although he initially seems to be in 'actual possession' if he does not have the guilty knowledge (mens rea) he is not guilty of this crime.
Therefore your statement of it being a prima facie case of an offence is wrong.
The compound owner who lives off site is then traced and interviewed, having been arrested at his home address on suspicion of the theft and handling of the omegas.
His home and business premises are
searched prior to charge and conviction under section 32 and 18 (1) of the police and criminal evidence act and items are found (documentation and car ringing equipment) and seized under s19 of PACE, the cars already have been seized under the same power. During the search of the business premises cocaine is found, S19 of PACE also allows that to be seized even though it is not what was being searched for - evidence of theft of the omegas and handling stolen goods.
Essentially section 19 PACE states that if the officer believes that the items have been obtained during the commission of the offence, or that it is evidence in relation to an offence he is investigating, or any other offence and the officer believes it is going to be
Concealed
Altered
Lost
Damaged
or Destroyed
then the officer may seize it.
This
is the power that would have been used to
seize the money in the Port Talbot case. The officers would take into consideration all the factors - the male can't account for it (an account could be its cash in hand earnings which I am going to declare next tax return), do they
suspect it to be proceeds of crime (yes) the amount (alot) and do they believe it would be concealed, altered, lost damaged or destroyed (yes, otherwise they would not have seized it)
The way a lot of legislation in the UK works is that an act (Statute legislation) or common law creates an offence. Proceeds of Crime being statute law. If officers
SUSPECT (not proven guilty therefore at this time from a legal viewpoint still possibly innocent) someone of committing the offence, they have additional powers granted under the Police and Ciminal Evidence Act to search for and seize evidence.
Have a look at PACE legislation here
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1871554. You will see just how many powers the police have that can be used. Some of them are quite invasive, agreed (think stop and search) which is why there has to be justification, proprtionality and accountability which the officer must record (in the case of stop and search, and make available to the person searched either at the time of within a year at the local poilce station)
Martin - you are confusing the Police with the Judical System. The police is there to collect evidence to present to the Crown Prosecution Service so they may prosecute.
The only time there is proof that a crime has been comitted
in law is when the suspect has been convicted by a court of law in its criminal capacity (i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt).
Courts acting in a civil capacity only need to prove balance of probabilites i.e 51% likelyhood that this person is responsible for the case bought before them.
If everyone had to be guilty before any of the powers given to the police could be used, then the police could not do their job at all. How could seizure (S19 PACE) of evidence happen to present to the Crown Prosecution Service as its evidence that convicts people. Its a chicken and egg situation.
In the Port Talbot case officers would have seized the money under section 19 of PACE, with the 'offence' being created by the proceeds of crime act.
The officers would conduct a PACE codes of practice compliant interview (PACE is NOT required in this interview as it is civil proceeedings, but officers will still abide to it as good practice).
The officers may now have the evidence (the money and the suspects lack of
satisfactory (cash earnings could be a satisfactory with further questioning about the nature of the work he carries out and his lifestyle etc (think bigger picture here) explanation for the money. Officers would then make an application to the courts (magistrates in a civil capacity) for a detention order, so that further financial investigation may occur.
If the officers cannot convince the magistrates (remeber 51% balance of probabilities) then no detention order is granted and the money back.
Following on from the financial investigation, once there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge then the Crown Prosecution Service will determine the most appropriate. Once conviction occurs a confiscation order can be made.
By the way
Martin, you still haven't answered my question, WHY do you think the £67,000 went into the officers pockets.
I hope I have answered some of your questions, I can't account for individual actions but I can tell you about legislation and the powers officers have.
Please would you answer mine
Author
Topic: Don't keep too much cash at home... (Read 3074 times)