PACE Code of Practice meaning

This Checklist outlines the matters defence practitioners may wish to weigh up when guiding a corporate client about attending an interview under caution arising from suspected corporate criminal conduct in England and Wales. It should be considered alongside the Practice Notes: Interview under caution and Voluntary attendance at an interview under caution. Advising clients before an interview under caution When a corporate client is asked to attend an interview under caution: Make sure the client grasps what an interview under caution involves and the significance of the caution. Confirm the client appreciates their rights before and during any interview under caution under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and PACE Code C. Explain what to expect at the interview under caution and the procedural steps the interviewing officer must take to meet PACE Code C. If the client forms part of a corporate group, verify the request for interview has been addressed to the correct legal entity...

Attendance at [ insert name of police station ] police station on [ insert date ] at [ insert time ] Dear [Sir/Madam], We act for [ insert client's name ], who has confirmed they will attend an interview at [ insert name of police station ] police station at [ insert time ] on [ insert date ]. As you will know, [ insert client's name ] will be present on a voluntary basis, has fully co-operated with your investigation and continues to do so. Accordingly, we ask that the Custody Sergeant is kindly advised in advance that there is no necessity for [ insert client's name ] to be arrested...

This Checklist This Checklist outlines the matters that legal representatives should weigh when advising a client about identification procedures under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code of Practice D (PACE Code D), and it ought to be read alongside the Practice Note: Advising a suspect on identification procedures. The legal representative should consider the following: Is the identification contested? Would an identification procedure fulfil a 'useful purpose'?...

What is the background to the review? In October 2023, the Home Office asked Jonathan Fisher KC to carry out an independent review of Disclosure and Fraud offences (the ‘Review’). Announced under the Conservative government’s 2023 Fraud Strategy, the Review was commissioned to examine how effectively the disclosure regime operates and whether the existing legislative framework is fit to tackle the demands of modern fraud. The catalyst was the exponential growth in material generated in criminal investigations and the resulting pressure on the criminal disclosure system. As society becomes ever more digitised, the quantity of case material has surged, most starkly in ‘sophisticated’ offences such as fraud, which are document-heavy and increasingly reliant on digital evidence. The framework set by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (the ‘CPIA 1996’) has struggled to keep pace, and, as highlighted in the preliminary findings, failures to disclose pertinent material have caused miscarriages of justice that have marked the criminal justice system (see Independent report—Preliminary findings and direction of travel)...

ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police [2025] EWHC 1964 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? ALK yields two concrete takeaways for practitioners and highlights two points for practice. First, Bourne J reaffirms the stringent threshold for the necessity of arrest under PACE 1984, s 24: courts will, among other matters, expect proof that arresting officers actively considered less intrusive measures, including whether they turned their minds to alternatives at the time. That inquiry can be determinative in itself. Engaging directly with the Parker Questions, Notes 2F and 2G to Code G, and surveying the authorities, the judgment confirms that assessing alternatives is no mere formality, but a real requirement. Practitioners should therefore ensure the evidence shows an officer’s consideration of alternatives if arrest is to be justified, whilst claimants should scrutinise any failure to do so. Secondly, ALK sets out the proper approach to disapplying QOCS in mixed claims. Bourne J emphasised that where claimants advance a...

In this issue: Key developments Air emissions and climate change Energy for environmental lawyers Environmental assessment Environmental disputes and proceedings Environmental enforcement and prosecutions Environmental information Environmental taxes, reliefs and incentives ESG and sustainability Hazardous substances and chemicals Nature, biodiversity and habitat protection Marine Waste Waste producer responsibility Water, flooding and drainage Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Key developments European Affairs Committee launches inquiry into UK-EU dynamic alignment The House of Lords European Affairs Committee has opened a call for evidence for a fresh inquiry into dynamic alignment, as part of the parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s UK-EU reset. As the tenth anniversary of the Brexit vote nears, the inquiry will assess the implications of prospective UK-EU arrangements under which the UK would align with specified areas of EU law, engage in EU law decision-shaping processes, and make financial contributions to relevant...

This Practice Note outlines the legal framework for interviewing a suspect under caution pursuant to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and the accompanying PACE Codes of Practice, with particular emphasis on PACE Code C. It sets out what an interview under caution entails, the advice a solicitor should provide to a suspect before it occurs, where the interview will take place, and the way it will be conducted. It further considers how the interview will be recorded and the approach when dealing with juveniles or vulnerable persons. It also addresses ‘no comment’ interviews and written statements made under caution. Current and historic versions of the PACE 1984 Codes of Practice are published by the Home Office and can be found here. What is an interview under caution? An interview is the questioning of a suspect about their involvement, or suspected involvement, in an offence, and it must be conducted under caution (a person must be cautioned where there are reasonable, objective grounds to...

Exclusion under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 The admissibility of hearsay in criminal proceedings is regulated by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). The CJA 2003 also permits the reception of hearsay evidence where one or more statutory bases for admitting it are met. The Act also sets out numerous protections, labelled by the Court of Appeal in Horncastle as a ‘crafted code’, intended to secure that hearsay is received only where admitting it is fair. See Practice Note: Admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. Practitioners might first, at the outset, assess whether the hearsay could be ruled out altogether, in appropriate cases, under CJA 2003, s 126 or section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), before turning to any further protections that could be employed should it be admitted. General discretion to exclude Pursuant to CJA 2003, s 126, the court has a discretion to refuse hearsay evidence where it is satisfied that the argument for exclusion, taking into...

Exceptions under the CJA 2003 The reception of hearsay evidence is governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). See Practice Note: Admissibility of hearsay evidence. The CJA 2003 expressly retains the common law exceptions to the hearsay rule for specified categories of proof. The preserved common law exceptions are: public information evidence of reputation res gestae (e.g. statements linked to the facts in issue that are an integral part of the events) confessions admissions by agents statements in furtherance of a common enterprise expert evidence See Practice Note: Admissibility of hearsay—preserved common law exceptions. The CJA 2003 also allows the admission of a previous inconsistent statement, i.e. a statement made by a witness before giving evidence that conflicts with their testimony at trial. Moreover, the Act makes express provision for other earlier statements by witnesses, e.g. statements used to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication. See Practice Notes: Admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings...