Arrested for not wearing a mask

As an initial disclaimer, I cannot vouch for the veracity of the content on this video, whether it has been staged or it is a real-life situation a man found himself in. Having said that, it is irrelevant for the purposes of this analysis as there is much to be learnt from this event whatever the case. The video can be found here

Before starting the analysis, it is worth asking first what is the job of police officers... enforce regulations? Keep the peace? If it is enforcing "the law", should they not be the first ones who know that law? Should they not be able to at least find the relevant legislation on their mobile devices and show it to the 'accused'? Would it not be the case that if 'the law' (of any kind) is more in line with morality, Justice, Natural Law, Common Sense, and even with man-made contract law; one should be able to back their claims against somebody else (even if that one is a representative of the state) and that without such proof, the claim is unfounded and means nothing in law? But more importantly, there are and there must be mechanisms for the people to be able to defend themselves from abuse of power. 

The main dispute in the video is about exemption cards regarding face masks. The man is asked for proof of exemption to which he replies that he does not have one and that ‘the law’ states he does not need to prove it (0:20/0:35). Therefore, the scene is presented with an officer and a man making contradicting claims. What does the Government website say regarding face coverings and exemptions? 

 

So, the man is right, he is correct, he has got the right. He "does not routinely need to show any written evidence of this" and he "does not need to show an exemption card". Furthermore, "Carrying an exemption card or badge is a personal choice and is not required by law". Nonetheless, after stating this truth [that the government website says it] the officer is not satisfied. The officer will continue to wrongly enforce an inexistent legislation [that the man is required to show proof of exemption] and will continue to either lie or ignore a truth which he could perfectly have checked and rectified several times more in the video (1:11/1:55/2:05/3:38). And even when given the opportunity to verify and rectify his statement, the officer is reluctant to do so (9:59).

The Council worker has no clue about the Regulation he is trying to enforce either but he feels entitled to keep harassing the man (5:54). Moreover, the two officers that get in scene (11:02) do not seem to know the legislation neither they look interested in knowing what they are there to enforce and keep insisting on the need for the man to show proof of exemption (11:16). When asked to check for themselves, the officers’ response is either 'you do it' (11:57) or silence (12:38).

The man knows his rights and that seems to have caught the officer off-guard. Rather than being the norm, there seems to be indifference on the part of the officers as to what the law says and most importantly, whether they can judge for themselves the situation to be just.

So, what are his (and our) rights?

1) To know which public employees are working on the case, which department they are working for; badge numbers and names (0:38/18:27). 

2) To record everything that is happening, which stops at the arrest point but could be recovered under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000; and to request the footage of the officers' cameras (11:59/19:02). 

3) To not give his details unless he is suspected of committing a crime. This derives from an English legal precedent: Rice v. Connolly (1966) holds that there is no strict, general legal duty to assist a police officer prior to any possible arrest or caution, with even basic police enquiries nor to accompany the officer to a requested location. But a part from that, the government website also states in 'police powers to stop and search: your rights':

 

Moreover, 'Notice of rights and entitlements' clearly states that you have the right to remain silent: 'when you are asked questions about a suspected offence, you do not have to say anything'. The officer does not seem to know this but he will find out by the end of the video when somebody else, presumably that chief inspector he is talking with, will explain to him that the man is right but that the way around this is to charge him with PACE, which is explained later on. 

The man repeats a lot of times to the officer that he has the right to remain silent and say nothing, not even give his details if he is not suspected of having committed any crime (20:08/0:47/1:05/1:11/1:34/2:08/4:09/4:18/5:22/5:54).

4) To have a supervisor there, talk to the chief inspector which he demands twice (0:57/1:00/7:48) 

5) To know about the offence he is suspected of committing (1:42/1:55/5:20/10:17)

6) Right to sue a police officer in their personal capacity if they have harassed or used disproportionate force (7:09). Under Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, this is improper exercise of police powers, so not just the officer in his personal capacity could be sued but the federation too.

7) Conditional Acceptance (9:59) and demanding proof of claim are basics in Contract Law.

8) Signing Under Duress (VC) makes whatever is signed null and void (14:56). 

Furthermore, the individual being harassed seems to know what the proper order is: (1) man/woman, (1) public, (3) public SERVANT. But remaining in honour is to show intention of keeping the peace by giving opportunities to the other part to keep it peaceful and deescalate the conflict and warn them of the consequences of their actions. 

The officer's argument at one point turns a bit curious if anything, as he himself is claiming that he needs to get the man's details in order for him to check whether he is carrying the virus as he cannot know because he is not a medical expert:

(10:35) How will I know you could be carrying the virus? I don't know that, I don't know that, I'm not a medical expert.

However, the point that he is not a medical expert is important as it has become "the norm" that non-medically trained ordinary people from all kinds of professions are conducting medical procedures on others like checking the body temperature. Moreover, the statement is completely irrelevant to the point which is an ignoratio elenchi fallacy - missing the point, ignoring the conclusion. The point is that the man is exempt and has no legal obligation to prove it. Whether he is carrying the virus or not, and whether the officer is medically trained or not, would not even make a difference to the issue. 

Finally, the legislation provided to carry out the arrest is Police And Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act 1984 section 17, which, ironically, the government's website states that: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the accompanying PACE codes of practice, establish the powers of the police to combat crimes while protecting the rights of the public. PACE sets out to strike the right balance between the powers of the police and the rights and freedoms of the public. Maintaining that balance is a central element of PACE. 

There is no crime being committed and the rights of the public are being infringed upon precisely by the officer who claims to be protecting them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main thing and the one that concerns this blog is in what way this incident links with Common Law. And, it could be argued that the mistake he made was to make statements and not keep as-King questions. The key question in this example should have been, for example, which part of the Coronavirus Act 2020 allows for an arrest when not displaying proof of the exemption? 

So, let me ask you:

1) Who is causing harm in this scene?

2) Who is causing loss?

3) Who is breeching the peace?

4) Who is being mischievous in their promises and agreements?

Just insisting on unlawfully demanding details and proof of exemption (without even counting the later unlawful arrest) could be deemed coercion, harassment and intimidation. Therefore, the police officer is improperly using (abusing) his powers and privileges as a constable as it's stated in section 26 of Criminals Justice and Courts Act 2015 which makes that an offence. Moreover, it states that this Act "supplements the existing common law offence of misconduct in public office."  

But more importantly, this analysis does not even matter because, when talking about 'citizens', 'person', 'members of the public'... we are in fiction land, in the world of 'legislation' and 'regulation' which might be, perhaps, the only thing the officer got right when he stated at the beginning that he was there to enforce "the legislation" or "the regulation"...and this is legalese and it is not English. Therefore, men and women are not required to understand it, or what is effectively the same… to stand under it.   

This is an update on the 'case':

Police wrote to the man that 'they are satisfied that the officers acted in accordance with the law' but when the police are asked what is their paperwork about the arrest they state:

'Released without charge' and 'confirmed mistaken identity'.