This Practice Note explains the circumstances when the police may bail a suspect who has been arrested but not charged (pre-charge bail), who has been arrested and charged (post-charge bail) and who has been bailed from somewhere other than a police station (street bail). There are different rules and considerations in relation to youths which are not dealt with in this Practice Note. For guidance on making representations for bail at the police station, see Practice Note: How to make representations for bail at the police station. For breach of bail or conditions of bail, see Practice Note: Breach of police bail. For information relating to the time limits placed on police bail, see Practice Note: Applicable bail period. The rules and procedures relating to police bail are governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and the Bail Act 1976 (BA 1976). Following their arrest, a suspect can be dealt with in the following ways: • no further action taken • out of court disposal given (eg caution) • released on pre-charge bail

Law360, London: Police can seize £2.6m in unpaid taxes from internet influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan Tate over millions they made from online businesses, a London court ruled on 18 December 2024.

Public Law analysis: The Administrative Court held that the Metropolitan Police Service’s Live Facial Recognition (LFR) policy satisfied the ‘quality of law’ requirements under Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because it imposed sufficiently clear and foreseeable constraints on where, why and against whom LFR could be deployed. Applying the relativist approach endorsed in R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales, the court rejected arguments that the policy permitted arbitrary decision-making. The judgment provides important guidance both for public authorities and private organisations deploying biometric or AI-driven surveillance technologies, emphasising the need for clearly defined operational parameters, robust governance and ongoing consideration of equality, privacy and human rights risks. Produced in partnership with Dan Tench, Tamsin Blow, James Warshaw and Rosie Coles of CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang.

Public Law analysis: The claimant brought judicial review alleging that police participation in Pride was unlawful because it gave rise to a perception of bias against persons who are ‘gender critical’, as the event was associated with the cause of ‘gender ideology’. The Administrative Court held that the Chief Constable of Northumbria had acted irrationally by authorising participation of uniformed police officers in the 2024 Newcastle Pride event, which was inconsistent with the police’s duty of impartiality. The Chief Constable had failed to engage with the impartiality arguments, although she had changed her approach for the 2025 event, and had justified participation by reference to the Public Sector Equality Duty (‘PSED’), which the Court said could not override the duty of impartiality. Mr Justice Linden applied the decision in Champion v Chief Constable of Gwent and set out a series of questions which a rational decision maker would be expected to consider in such circumstances. Written by Kevin Brown, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

The Home Office has published the consultation outcome on the subject of the 12-month rule in regulation 12 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/932. Regulation 11 provides for the payment of injury awards for police officers who, as a result of injury received in the course of duty, have been permanently disabled and are unable to continue in the role. An injury award consists of a pension and a gratuity. Regulation 12 provides a significant additional gratuity for police officers who become totally and permanently disabled within 12 months of an injury. The additional gratuity is five times the annual value of the officer’s pensionable pay. The consultation, which ran between 12 May 2021 and 7 July 2021, examined the 12-month rule's compatibility with the Equality Act 2010, focusing on its impact on mental health injuries compared to physical injuries. Most respondents felt the 12-month rule was inconsistent with the Equality Act and did not adequately address progressive mental health conditions. However, there was no consensus among representative organisations, and the data collected was inconclusive. The Home Office therefore intends to gather more focused data and evidence through an engagement exercise with stakeholders and medical experts before considering any changes to regulation 12. However, if sufficient evidence and data support an amendment to regulation 12, the Home Office will consult further on any proposed changes.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The High Court held that an officer’s use of a taser was not lawful or justified because it was not objectively reasonable or proportionate. Further, the court ruled on the proper approach to damages. Of particular note is the approach to claims of loss of earning capacity pursuant to Smith v Manchester. Written by Anirudh Mandagere, barrister at Deka Chambers.

Law360: The UK's highest court ruled 23 October 2024 that English police had not negligently caused the deaths of two men who died in a road collision due to black ice, ruling that the police officers did not have a duty of care to prevent harm to drivers.

Law360: A police officer is taking the Home Secretary to court over a century-old law that bans officers from unionising, arguing the restriction violates human rights and leaves officers with no credible form of independent representation, lawyers at Leigh Day confirmed on 21 July 2025.

Employment analysis: Does judicial immunity preclude a police misconduct panel from facing an officer’s claims against it in an employment tribunal? Ed Kemp of Littleton Chambers examines the Supreme Court’s answer in P v Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Law360: A group of police officers can revive their group action over their annual pension statements being posted to the wrong address, as an appeals court found on 22 August 2025 that the error had breached their rights to privacy.

Law360: Two part-time policemen have convinced an employment tribunal (ET) that bosses discriminated against them for being disabled by removing them from specialist roles with animals and placing them in positions they were less qualified for.

Police powers are the legal powers given to police and certain other law enforcement officers to prevent and detect crime, protect life and property, and maintain public order. They typically include powers to stop and search, question, require information, enter and search premises, seize property, arrest, detain, and use reasonable force.In England and Wales, core police powers are set out mainly in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and associated Codes of Practice, with additional powers in terrorism, public order, road traffic and immigration legislation. Northern Ireland has parallel but distinct provisions, including the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. In Scotland, police powers derive from common law and statute, notably the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. In Ireland, most police powers of An Garda Síochána are found in specific statutes, including the Criminal Justice Acts and Garda Síochána Act 2005.“Police powers” is primarily a descriptive term, used in criminal procedure, judicial review, civil claims and human rights litigation to assess lawfulness, necessity, proportionality, safeguards, and remedies for abuse of power.