ABSTRACT
Chapter 13 was concerned with the question of the balance to be struck between the exercise of powers by the police in conducting an investigation on the one hand and safeguards for the suspect against abuse of power on the other. As we have seen, the statutory rules, including in particular those under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA), the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (CJP) and the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA) contain, on the one hand, provisions intended to secure suspects’ rights, such as s 58 of PACE and Sched 8, para 7 of the TA, while on the other they create or extend a statutory basis for the exercise of police powers, which frequently enhances those powers.2 Thus, the rules can be viewed as reflecting two different models-those of crime control and due process-and since the approach and aims of those models is conflicting, the statutes in question and their application in practice reflect the resulting inevitable tension. This may be said even of new provisions which appear to be intended, fairly obviously, to enhance police powers, such as ss 50 and 51 of the CJP. These provisions provide, as Chapters 11 and 13 indicated, new powers of seizure during searches of people or of premises. But they are ‘balanced’ by the provisions of ss 52-61 which, while affording new powers of retention of property seized a clear statutory basis, also provide for notice to persons whose property has been seized, and safeguard its use by various provisions.3 It is not suggested that the balance struck is satisfactory, but it is clear that, although these CJP provisions are very much orientated towards crime control, they are limited by provisions reflecting due process concerns.
