Omegaestate3.2 wrote:
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.
Thanks for your detailed response. I think the Omega example is perhaps a red herring, given that they would have to be stored somewhere, so let's take another example. There has been a burglary and a plasma TV has been nicked. The police stop a car nearby which matches a description of the vehicle used in the crime. Inside the car, they find a plasma TV. That's prima facie evidence, I think, and the police would arrest the occupants and seize the TV on suspicion of burglary.
In the case of the 67K how can they seize the money. On suspicion of what, exactly? There is no evidence that a crime has been committed, just supposition. It's not illegal to have 67k in cash.
What I find disturbing (though no doubt true) is your description of the PACE Act:
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
I don't have any problem with the first part, but it is the highlighted text that worries me since, essentially, this is a catch-all. Indeed, you could delete the first part of the Act and just say that if an officer believes items are related to any past, present or future offence, he can seize them.
[size=12]Oh I wish I could see into the furture and win Lotto and retire[/size]
As I said earlier, it's legislation that worries me, not the police.
I am beginning to regret starting this thread though! 
Nickbat
You're quite correct with the example you gave since there would be independent evidence (witnesses, CCTV for example) which links the vehicle to the crime. You would also be quite correct in that the officers actions would be to arrest and interview you occupants of the vehicle.
The proceeds of crime act does not make it illegal to have £67,000 worth of money at home IF it is been obtained by legitimate means.
What it does seek to do though is prevent people from living off dishonest monetary gain, however that is so achieved (drug dealing, unpaid taxes, fraud etc). The act creates powers and offences in relation to this.
If someone cannot give a reasonable explanation for having that amount of money in their property at that point in time that would raise the suspicion of the officers that the money has not been obtained by legitimate means.
Is it not he case then, that an offence is now suspected to have been comitted against the proceeds of crime act if a person fails to give a satisfactory explanation as to where the money has come from.
As already stated, a satisfactory explanation could be that it is the product of cash jobs and that like some members on this forum they do not wish to use banks for whatever reason personal to them. There would also be supporting documentation and an audit trail by way of customers that could vouch for a story of this nature.
In relation to your concerns about S19 of the police and criminal evidence act think of it like this.
Let's go back to your burglars with the plasma telly.
Having got them into custody at the police station, the inspector lawfully authorises is the search of their property for other evidence relating to burglaries. Let's face it most people (criminals don't get caught the first time they commit an offence.
So the search power under section 18(1) PACE is to look for evidence relating to burglaries.
Whilst at one of the addresses, of those that are in custody, carrying out our search we come across half a kilo of cocaine together with a couple of laptops and PlayStation 3 for example.
It is completely nonsensical to suggest that we couldn't seize the cocaine but could seize the laptops and PlayStation 3.
Section 19 PACE therefore incorporates the power to seize the drugs without having to get additional permission or warrants. This prevents wasting police time chasing round to get a signature on a piece of paper.
That said, this power does not provide for police officers to seize anything at random. They still have to
believe it is evidence of an offence and that they
believe that unless they seize it, it will be concealed, altered, lost, damaged or destroyed.
It is also importat to note that to believe requires a higher level of justification than suspect. On a sliding scale 0 - 100 with 100 being known fact, to believe something is at about 80 whilst to suspect is around 20 - 30, however it is down to individual officers to justify their individual level of suspicion or belief on the information that they have available to them.
I appreciate your frustrations with the legislation, however operationally it does make perfect sense since it is about saving time. I trust you can see this from the example that I have now given.
The law is complex, however if people do not understand it and then comment on it, urban myths and incorrect statements prevail resulting assumptions that the police are acting unlawfully, when actually they are acting within their powers.
This is not about defending the actions of officers that have either acted unlawfully or outside of the discipline code (that is indefensible) but trying to explain the legislation and how it is put into operational practice.
HTH
Author
Topic: Don't keep too much cash at home... (Read 3066 times)