I wrote a short Note prompted by this piece, reflecting on moral latency, slogans, and why law ends up stepping in when argument fails. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
As a layman a lot in this article does not make sense to me.
How can the police arrest someone if the CPS is saying the threshold for prosecution is not met, aren't the CPS in fact saying no crime has been committed?
Can the police arrest someone if no crime has been committed - I thought that would be an unlawful arrest?
How can the police just use the word "recalibration" to go against the advise of the CPS?
What does "recalibration" even mean here and is it up to police to interpret or reinterpret the law?
The quotes from the police chiefs is "tested" we will "test this" but testing means putting it before a court of law to see if a conviction results, how can a conviction result if the CPS will not prosecute?
I see what you mean, but I think that in the UK police powers of arrest, CPS charging decisions, and court determinations are deliberately designed to be separate. Advice from the Crown Prosecution Service that a charge may not currently meet threshold doesn't mean an offence doesn't exists, and it doesn’t remove police powers to arrest where there is reasonable suspicion and necessity.
In a public-order context, that suspicion would ordinarily arise from what officers directly observe in real time words used, location, repetition, surrounding circumstances, escalation rather than from a mere allegation after the fact.
When police talk about “recalibration”, they’re not changing the law or ignoring CPS advice. They’re signalling a more assertive use of existing powers, and a willingness to let courts, rather than internal caution, determine where the legal boundary now sits in a changed context.
An arrest can therefore be lawful even if no charge or conviction follows. Whether an arrest is lawful turns on reasonable suspicion at the time, not on what the CPS later decides or on eventual prosecutorial outcomes.
I wrote a short Note prompted by this piece, reflecting on moral latency, slogans, and why law ends up stepping in when argument fails. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
As a layman a lot in this article does not make sense to me.
How can the police arrest someone if the CPS is saying the threshold for prosecution is not met, aren't the CPS in fact saying no crime has been committed?
Can the police arrest someone if no crime has been committed - I thought that would be an unlawful arrest?
How can the police just use the word "recalibration" to go against the advise of the CPS?
What does "recalibration" even mean here and is it up to police to interpret or reinterpret the law?
The quotes from the police chiefs is "tested" we will "test this" but testing means putting it before a court of law to see if a conviction results, how can a conviction result if the CPS will not prosecute?
I see what you mean, but I think that in the UK police powers of arrest, CPS charging decisions, and court determinations are deliberately designed to be separate. Advice from the Crown Prosecution Service that a charge may not currently meet threshold doesn't mean an offence doesn't exists, and it doesn’t remove police powers to arrest where there is reasonable suspicion and necessity.
In a public-order context, that suspicion would ordinarily arise from what officers directly observe in real time words used, location, repetition, surrounding circumstances, escalation rather than from a mere allegation after the fact.
When police talk about “recalibration”, they’re not changing the law or ignoring CPS advice. They’re signalling a more assertive use of existing powers, and a willingness to let courts, rather than internal caution, determine where the legal boundary now sits in a changed context.
An arrest can therefore be lawful even if no charge or conviction follows. Whether an arrest is lawful turns on reasonable suspicion at the time, not on what the CPS later decides or on eventual prosecutorial outcomes.