Please note that articles may contain affilitate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Tuesday 21 July 2020

Wasting Police Time


It is a regrettable fact that some people deliberately and vexatiously generate unnecessary work and inconvenience for the police.

It is important that the police's time, efforts and resources are channeled in the right direction where there is genuine need, instead of getting bogged down chasing red herrings.

Under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 a person commits an offence if they cause the wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report - either orally or in writing - tending to:
  • show that an offence has been committed; or,
  • give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property; or,
  • show that he has information material to any police inquiry.
The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 4 (currently £2,500).

In accordance with section 5(3) of the Act, proceedings may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

According to CPS guidelines a prosecution for wasting police time is likely to be in the public interest in the following circumstances:
  • police resources have been diverted for a significant period (for example 10 hours);
  • a substantial cost is incurred, for example a police helicopter is used or an expensive scientific examination undertaken;
  • when the false report is particularly grave or malicious;
  • considerable distress is caused to a person by the report;
  • the accused knew, or ought to have known, that police resources were under particular strain or diverted from a particularly serious inquiry;
  • there is significant premeditation in the making of the report;
  • the report is persisted in, particularly in the face of challenge.
Offences at the less serious end of the spectrum are often dealt with by means of a fixed penalty notice as an alternative to prosecution.

Alternative charges might be more appropriate in the case of a person orchestrating a bomb hoax (section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977) or knowingly raising a false fire alarm (section 49 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004).

No comments: