Advising clients at the police station - Right to have someo...

Learning Outcomes

This article provides a thorough grounding in a detainee’s right to have someone informed of their arrest under section 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). It covers:

• The statutory basis, rationale, and practical importance of the right to intimation while in police custody.
• The detailed requirements for exercising the right, including who may be notified and the methods available.
• The strict legal conditions and process for any lawful delay of the right under s.56, including limitations tied to the seriousness of the alleged offence, the required police rank, and evidential thresholds.
• Effective strategies for monitoring, advising, and, where necessary, challenging the lawfulness of delays as a solicitor, with reference to best practice and PACE Code C.
• Connections between this right and other core protections in police detention, such as the right to legal advice, fair treatment, and the maintenance of a custody record.
• Key case law and statutory interpretations relevant to section 56 and Art. 5, 6 and 8 ECHR obligations, and how breaches may affect evidence admissibility or lead to civil remedies.

An in-depth understanding of these principles is essential for representing the interests of clients during police detention, ensuring police accountability, and equipping you to identify and respond to procedural and substantive breaches of detainee rights.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand detainees’ rights at the police station, specifically the right to have someone informed of arrest under PACE 1984, s.56, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Statutory source, purpose, and parameters of the right to have someone informed of arrest under PACE 1984, s.56.
• Scope of the right: who may be notified, how the notification is made, and the importance of prompt exercise.
• Limits and exceptions: conditions warranting delay, grounds for delay as exhaustively set out in statute and Code C, and documentation required.
• Rank of officer empowered to authorise delay under s.56 and formalities of authorisation.
• Maximum period that delay may lawfully subsist before the right must be granted.
• Relationship between the suspected offence’s classification (indictable-only or either-way, not summary only) and available delays.
• The Solicitor’s role: advising the client of their rights, reviewing and acting on the custody record, and challenging unlawful or improper delays.
• How analogous rights (e.g., right to legal advice under s.58 PACE) intersect and diverge procedurally and substantively from the right to intimation.
• The significance of compliance with PACE, including the effect on admissibility of evidence (especially confessions) and potential civil liability.
• Key procedural instruments: the custody record, Code C provisions, Art. 5 ECHR safeguards, and major judicial guidance.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Under PACE 1984, s 56, who can a detained person request to be informed of their arrest?

   • a) Only their solicitor.
   • b) Any one friend or relative, or another person likely to take an interest in their welfare.
   • c) Any number of friends or relatives.
   • d) Only their next of kin as defined by statute.

2. What is the maximum period for which the right to have someone informed of arrest can be delayed under PACE 1984?

   • a) 12 hours from arrival at the police station.
   • b) 24 hours from the time of arrest.
   • c) 36 hours from the relevant time.
   • d) 48 hours from the time detention is authorised.

3. Which rank of police officer (or above) must authorise a delay in exercising the right to have someone informed of arrest?

   • a) Constable.
   • b) Sergeant.
   • c) Inspector.
   • d) Superintendent.

Introduction

A suspect’s initial period in police custody is a critical stage in the criminal process, and the law guarantees several protections designed to uphold their dignity, fair treatment, and access to legal and personal support. Among these, the right—under section 56 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)—to have one nominated person promptly notified of their arrest and place of detention, is a core safeguard.

This right serves several purposes: ensuring that a person’s whereabouts are not concealed from the outside world, preventing incommunicado detention, and allowing family or others to take supportive action, including arranging legal representation or providing for dependents. International human rights norms—including Art. 5 and 6 of the ECHR—highlight the importance of prompt notification of arrest.

As a solicitor advising detainees, you must not only explain this right but remain alert to its limits, potential delays, and the strict statutory framework for any derogation. Close attention to PACE Code C, accurate record-keeping, and a readiness to intervene where police exceed their powers are all fundamental aspects of professional duty in custody situations.

Key Term: Custody Record
A continuous, contemporaneous record kept by the custody officer comprising all significant events and decisions concerning a detainee’s time in custody, including the exercise, delay, or refusal of rights under PACE and Code C.

The Right to Intimation under PACE 1984, s 56

Section 56 of PACE gives any person arrested and held in police custody the right, on request, to have one individual notified "as soon as practicable" of their arrest and the location where they are being detained.

Scope of the Right

The scope of the right is broad but not absolute in every respect. The detained person may nominate as the recipient of the information:

• A friend,
• A relative, or
• "Some other person known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare" such as an employer or a support worker (PACE s.56(1); Code C, para 5.1).

The right is limited in that it is to “one” person in the first instance. However, if the first nominated person cannot be contacted within a “reasonable time,” the detainee is entitled to nominate up to two alternatives (Code C, para 5.2)—an important feature if relatives are abroad, uncontactable, or unwilling to get involved.

The entitlement is not automatic but must be requested; nevertheless, good practice (and Art. 5 ECHR rights to safeguard liberty and security) dictate that suspects should be informed as soon as practicable after initial authorisation of their right to intimation.

Police officers must facilitate the request directly and efficiently, using official means to ensure the notification is made.

Key Term: Right to Intimation
The right of anyone arrested and detained at a police station to have one nominated individual notified of their arrest and place of detention, as provided by s 56 PACE.

Communication Methods

The notification is typically given by telephone, although letters or in-person visits (with appropriate supervision and security) are possible. The Act does not confer a right to a private conversation with the nominated person, but the custody officer possesses a limited discretion to permit verbal contact or a supervised meeting if appropriate, especially where vulnerable suspects are involved or where a simple notification is insufficient for particular welfare reasons (Code C, paras 5.4, 5.5).

All steps taken—including a summary of the notification or the attempts made to effect it—must be thoroughly documented in the custody record, ensuring a clear audit trail to monitor police compliance and inform any subsequent challenge.

If unusual means of notification are requested for good reason (e.g., a written letter due to language issues or deafness), the custody officer should accommodate these, provided security and practicalities are not compromised.

Worked Example 1.1

Anna is arrested on suspicion of fraud and requests that her friend Muna be informed of her detention. The custody officer tries to call Muna but receives no reply. Anna is told, and she nominates her brother and her landlord as alternatives. Both are successfully called and made aware of the arrest.

Answer:
This scenario illustrates that the suspect may nominate up to two additional people for notification if the first cannot be contacted within a reasonable period, ensuring that the right is meaningful and practical, not merely formal.

Practical Considerations for Solicitors

A solicitor arriving at the police station should verify in the custody record:

• The time the detainee was notified of their right under s.56,
• The details of any request or refusal,
• The success or failure of police attempts to contact the nominated person,
• Any police explanations for delay or difficulty in notification.

If the notification is refused or delayed, it is important that this, the grounds, and the authorising officer’s rank are clearly recorded.

Key Term: Relevant Time
The point at which detention is first authorised at the police station, or, for a voluntary attender, the time of arrest, marking the start for legal time limits on police detention and rights, including intimation.

Delaying the Right to Have Someone Informed

The right to intimation should, as a matter of legal principle, be exercised "as soon as practicable." However, Parliament has provided for certain tightly defined situations in which this right may be delayed, reflecting the higher risks posed in some serious criminal investigations.

Conditions for Delay

A delay can only be imposed where the following cumulative conditions are satisfied:

• The person is detained for an indictable offence (either indictable-only or either-way, but not a summary only offence),
• The decision to delay is taken and expressly authorised by an officer of at least Inspector rank (s.56(2)),
• There are reasonable grounds to believe that allowing notification would probably result in at least one of three consequences (s.56(5); Code C, Annex B):
  • Interference with, or harm to, evidence connected with the indictable offence, or with the investigation.
  • Physical injury to another person connected with the case, or interference with or intimidation of witnesses.
  • Alerting another person suspected of such an indictable offence but not yet arrested.
  • Hindering the recovery of property obtained as a consequence of the indictable offence.

Key Term: Indictable Offence
Any offence triable at the Crown Court, whether indictable only or either-way; summary-only offences do not permit delay to the right to intimation under s.56.

These strict conditions mean that the right cannot be delayed in routine summary offences, nor where lesser justifications (e.g., mere inconvenience or administrative delay) exist. Delay is permitted only for properly evidenced, substantial risks directly affecting the investigation or safety, and only where lesser steps (such as merely supervising the notification) would clearly be inadequate.

Key Term: Authorising Officer
For s.56, only a police officer of Inspector rank or above may lawfully authorise delay. Where a junior officer purports to delay the right, this will be unlawful regardless of other circumstances.

Worked Example 1.2

Marcus is arrested on suspicion of theft (an either-way offence). The custody officer (a sergeant) decides to delay intimation because a suspected co-offender has not yet been caught, and she worries he may be tipped off. The sergeant signs off the delay and makes a note.

Answer:
The decision to delay is unlawful, as a sergeant does not possess authority to approve delay; only an Inspector or above may do so. Further, any delay must be justified by reasonable grounds—not mere suspicion—that a real risk listed in s.56(5) will materialise.

Authorisation and Duration

Authorisation to delay must be:

• Based on particularised, reasonable grounds objectively assessed in the specific case—not general policy,
• Given in writing (or orally and confirmed in writing as soon as practicable),
• Not speculative or based on unsupported fears,
• Proportionate and justified in terms of necessity and duration.

The maximum period for which the exercise of the right may be delayed is 36 hours from the relevant time (usually the time of arrival at the station following arrest). Once that time is reached, the right must be granted regardless of whether the original grounds persist.

Equally, the delay must be lifted earlier if the grounds for delay cease to exist—for example, after a suspect property has been recovered or a co-offender has been apprehended. The decision to lift or continue delay must also be formally recorded in the custody record at each review.

Worked Example 1.3

Debbie is arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit robbery, an indictable offence. The police receive intelligence that her uncle, whom Debbie wishes to notify, may be hiding some of the stolen goods. The Inspector responsible for custody authorises a delay, believing that informing the uncle may result in disposal or hiding of the property. The search is conducted that evening and the property is recovered.

Answer:
The delay is properly justified and authorised by an Inspector because there are reasonable grounds to believe that the notification would hinder recovery of property. However, once the search concludes and the risk dissipates, the delay must end, and the right must be granted without further hesitation.

Recording Delay and Continuing Review

All aspects of authorisation, review, and exercise or non-exercise of the right must be contemporaneously and comprehensively recorded in the custody record. This includes:

• The Authorising Officer’s name, rank, and reasons for the delay,
• Objective particulars of the grounds found,
• Time and date of each authorisation and review,
• Date and means of eventual notification.

The custody record serves as an important source of accountability and evidence of fair and lawful treatment, ensuring transparency for both the defence and the courts.

Key Term: Grounds for Delay
The legal justifications for delay, which are exhaustively listed in PACE s.56(5) and include real risks of evidence interference, danger to individuals, alerting suspects, or hindering property recovery in relation to an indictable offence.

Worked Example 1.4

Fatima is detained on suspicion of common assault (a summary-only offence). She requests that her partner be notified. The sergeant authorises a delay, believing the partner may try to intimidate the complainant.

Answer:
Delay is unlawful on two grounds: first, as the alleged offence is summary-only, delay powers cannot be exercised; second, authorisation is by a sergeant, which is not permitted. Any such delay is a breach of statutory and Code C requirements, and should be challenged by the solicitor.

Distinguishing the Right to Intimation (s.56) from Right to Legal Advice (s.58)

It is essential to distinguish between these related but separate rights. The rank required for authorising delay is Inspector for intimation and Superintendent for access to legal advice. Both rights protect core liberties and are underpinned by international treaties (ECHR, UNCAT) as well as domestic law.

The main grounds for delay are similar (interference with evidence, endangerment, alerting suspects, hindering recovery of property), but the authority responsible for the decision, and the procedural safeguards, differ. Delay in either right must be strictly time-limited and continuously reviewed, with the duration never exceeding 36 hours for intimation and being proportionately necessary.

Failure to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements may amount to a breach of Art. 5 or 6 ECHR and may lead to the exclusion of evidence under s.78 PACE or remedies under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Key Term: Maximum Delay
The outer limit for delaying the right to intimation under s.56 is 36 hours from the relevant time; after this point, the right must be granted regardless of ongoing investigative concerns.

Role of the Solicitor

The solicitor’s responsibilities in situations involving the right to intimation are proactive and ongoing. These responsibilities include:

Advice and Monitoring

When attending the police station:

• Confirm through the custody record whether the client requested intimation and whether the request was promptly met,
• Check for any delay—ensure that any delay is:
  • Authorised by an Inspector or above,
  • Premised on the proper statutory grounds,
  • Supported by objectively reasonable, specific, and contemporaneously recorded reasons.

If the solicitor identifies delay that is unlawful (for example, because it is not an indictable offence, or for lack of proper authority or grounds), they must:

• Formally raise this with the custody officer and the authorising officer,
• Make written representations for immediate restoration of the right,
• Insist that their objection and the police response are fully recorded in the custody record.

Solicitors should also advise clients on the consequences of delay or denial of the right—including the possibility, in serious or egregious cases, of evidence being excluded at trial under s.78 PACE if the denial of the right contributed to oppressive or unfair treatment.

A solicitor has a continued duty to monitor the review of the right and, if circumstances change (for example, following the execution of a search warrant), to require that police grant the right to intimation immediately.

Challenging Unlawful Delay

Solicitors can challenge unlawful delay in several ways:

• Make representations directly to the authorising Inspector at the station,
• Escalate the challenge to the custody sergeant and, if necessary, a reviewing Superintendent,
• Insist on thorough documentation in the custody record, both of the original grounds and of the challenge,
• If the process remains non-compliant, advise the client of the potential grounds for excluding any confession or subsequent evidence obtained during unlawful delay (especially confessions allegedly made in interviews conducted during the period of breach).

Relevant case law (see, e.g., R v Samuel [1988] 1 WLR 920) confirms that confessions or evidence obtained in breach of rights under PACE s.56 or s.58 may be excluded under s.78 PACE, especially where the breach rendered the proceedings unfair. Additionally, a serious breach could give rise to claims for compensation or judicial review.

Consequences for the Investigation and Evidence

If the right is unlawfully delayed or denied, any evidence—including admissions or confessions—obtained during the period of delay may be challenged by the defence on the basis that the breach rendered the evidence unfair, unreliable, or obtained in conditions amounting to oppression.

Section 78 PACE gives the court a discretionary power to exclude any such evidence where, considering all circumstances (including the manner in which it was obtained), admitting it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.

In flagrant or repeated breaches—such as routine unauthorised delays or blanket policies without proper case-by-case assessment—the courts have repeatedly held that evidence obtained may be tainted and inadmissible.

Worked Example 1.5

Joseph is arrested on suspicion of drug importation (an indictable-only offence). The police fear that notifying his friend, whom he nominated, would lead to co-conspirators being tipped off and evidence disposed of. An Inspector authorises the delay. Two days later, after the co-conspirators have been arrested and key evidence secured, the Inspector, upon review, grants Joseph the right to have his friend notified, 28 hours after arrest.

Answer:
The delay was lawfully authorised and time-limited by an Inspector, based on reasonable grounds linked to the statutory criteria. When circumstances changed (co-conspirators arrested), the continuing need for delay ceased, and the right was exercised before expiry of the 36-hour maximum. The custody record should accurately reflect the justification, the review, and the timing of restoration of the right.

Vulnerable Detainees and Juveniles

For vulnerable suspects or juveniles, the right to intimation remains important, supplemented by the entitlement to an appropriate adult (Code C, Annex E). In such cases, police should consider practical arrangements for exercising the right, and solicitors must be especially vigilant for any deprivation that may compound vulnerability or increase isolation.

Additionally, solicitors should ensure that delays are not justified merely by the “risk” that notification itself would cause distress; the risk must be that notification would produce the consequences specified in s.56(5).

Failure to adopt a flexible approach or to make reasonable adjustments in the exercise or delay of the right in cases of vulnerability can amount to a breach of Art. 5 or 8 ECHR, and may result in subsequent exclusion of evidence or civil remedy.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The right to have one person informed of arrest and detention under s.56 PACE is a fundamental statutory protection, applicable on request and exercisable as soon as practicable after arrival at the station.
• The right is restricted to one nominated individual in the first instance, with up to two alternative nominations possible if the first cannot be contacted.
• Police must facilitate notification and document all steps taken (or reasons it was impracticable) in the custody record.
• Delay of the right is only permissible for those arrested for indictable offences and only if an Inspector (or above) authorises on reasonable, specific grounds directly drawn from statute.
• Statutory criteria for delay are exhaustive (interference with evidence or persons, alerting suspects, hindering recovery of property) and may not be extended by local policy or administrative convenience.
• The period of delay cannot exceed 36 hours from the relevant time and must end sooner if the relevant risk ceases to exist.
• Solicitors must carefully review custody records, advise clients on rights and procedures, and intervene or object to any non-compliance, ensuring full documentation.
• Unlawful delay or denial may lead to exclusion of evidence, especially confessions, and may form the basis for civil or public law remedies.
• The right to intimation and the right to legal advice are discrete, with different thresholds for delay, authorising ranks, and procedural rules, and should not be confused.
• Safeguards for vulnerable detainees are especially stringent, with both rights and duties reinforced by ECHR obligations.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Custody Record
• Right to Intimation
• Authorising Officer
• Relevant Time
• Indictable Offence
• Maximum Delay
• Grounds for Delay