Police

Legal advice to persons in custody - probationary solicitor's representative banned from police stations - blanket ban unlawfulR (Thompson) v Chief Constable of the Northumbria Constabulary: CA (Lord Woolf CJ, May and Jonathan Parker LJJ): 8 March 2001The applicant, a former police officer who was appealing against dismissal from the force, started working as a probationary solicitor's representative.The deputy chief constable decided that, pending determination of his appeal, he was not to be admitted to any police station in the force's area to advise persons in custody on the grounds, among other things, that it was inappropriate for him to be acting for suspects when he could be reinstated as a police officer; that there was a real risk of an investigation being prejudiced in view of the personal feelings he had indicated towards the force; and that there was unlikely to be any trust or respect between investigating officers and him given that he had been dismissed from the force for misconduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of that decision.

Mr Justice Gibbs refused the application.

The applicant appealed.Gavin Millar QC and Ben Cooper (instructed by Hindle Campbell, North Shields) for the applicant.

John T Milford QC and Michael Ditchfield (instructed by Force Solicitor, Newcastle upon Tyne) for the chief constable.Held, allowing the appeal, that under code C6.12 of the codes of practice under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 a solicitor's probationary representative sent to provide advice on his behalf to a person held in custody should be admitted to the police station unless an inspector or more senior officer considered that such a visit would hinder the investigation of crime; that under the Act and the code it was the solicitor's responsibility to provide independent advice to a person held in custody and it was the police's responsibility to provide access to that advice, and the quality of the advice was not the police's concern; that whether the investigation of crime was being hindered had to be considered in the factual context of a particular investigation and, therefore, a blanket ban on a particular representative was not appropriate; but that advice could be given to officers that, because of his character, a particular representative was likely to hinder an investigation and the appropriate officer could then decide whether his attendance was likely to interfere with a particular investigation (WLR).