The 17-Year-Old, the Missing Appropriate Adult and the Late Charge

Two distinct breaches, each independently serious.

Legal advice. PACE s.58(1) gives a detainee the right to consult a solicitor. Delay is permitted only under s.58(8): an officer of at least superintendent rank must authorise it, and only for a serious arrestable (indictable) offence where the solicitor's access would hinder the investigation. Nothing on these facts shows a superintendent's authorisation. The 'you should just answer the questions' remark is also a breach of Code C paragraph 6.4 (no inducement) and turns the absence of advice into something worse: an inducement with a promise of release.

Appropriate adult. Ryan is a juvenile. Code C paragraph 11.15 requires an appropriate adult to be present before an interview can proceed; absence is a fundamental breach and goes to reliability, not just fairness.

Applications.

1. s.76(2)(a) PACE 1986 - the admission was obtained by things said or done which were likely, in the circumstances, to render it unreliable. The 'get out tonight' inducement is precisely the kind of thing the subsection targets. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it did not render the confession unreliable.
2. s.76(2)(b) in the alternative - unreliability in consequence of the absence of an appropriate adult, whose function is to facilitate communication and ensure the interview is fair for a child.
3. s.78(1) - unfairness, the discretion to exclude; the breaches are significant and the admissions are the heart of the case.
4. Ask for the custody record, interview tapes, custody visit log and the solicitor's call log to prove the request, the refusal and the absence of authorisation.

Strategy. The case will be won or lost on the voir dire. If the admissions go, the remaining evidence is a single-photograph identification, no laptop, and no forensic link. Advise the client accordingly before any plea is entered - do not let him plead on the basis that the confession will be in.

The clock. The 'relevant time' is arrival at the police station - 21:55 on Tuesday, not arrest at 21:10. The basic limit is 24 hours from that time, so the detention was authorised only until 21:55 on Wednesday (PACE s.41).

Was it extended? Detention can be extended to 36 hours under s.42, but only by an officer of at least superintendent rank, and only where they have reasonable grounds for believing detention is necessary to obtain evidence (for example the outstanding laptop), the offence is indictable, and the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. Ryan was charged at 23:30 on Wednesday, one hour and thirty-five minutes after the limit expired. Check the custody record for a s.42 authorisation, for the s.40 reviews (first review within 6 hours of the relevant time, then at intervals of not more than 9 hours) and for any 'clock stops' - time in transit, time at hospital, time waiting for the appropriate adult does not necessarily pause the clock if the delay is the police's own.

Consequences.

1. Detention after 21:55 was unlawful, so anything done after that point is exposed to s.78 exclusion - here the charge itself, but also any identification or further questions.
2. The unlawfulness is relevant context for the fairness of the whole detention.
3. Take instructions on a possible claim for false imprisonment against the police; limitation for tort is six years, but act promptly on evidence gathering.
4. If the charge was laid on no lawful basis, consider a submission of abuse of process, though this is a remedy of last resort and the court will usually prefer to deal with the evidence rather than stay proceedings.
5. Advise the client in writing of the finding and make a formal complaint; the breach will support the submission that this investigation was not conducted in accordance with PACE from start to finish.

Identification. Evidential identification must comply with Code D. Showing a witness a single photograph on an officer's phone is not a permitted formal identification procedure - the proper route is a VIPER video identification or a comparable parade (Code D para 3), and a street identification or covert procedure may only be used in defined circumstances. The breach does not automatically exclude; under s.78 the court weighs the significance of the breach and whether it has prejudiced the defence. Application of Turnbull: consider the witness's opportunity to observe (lighting, duration, distance, whether a clear view of the face), the length of time between the offence and the identification, whether the witness gave a description matching Ryan before seeing the photograph, and the danger of displacement. A single photograph is highly suggestive and the defence will argue it contaminated the evidence. In practice this is a real, but not a knock-out, submission.

Forum. A 17-year-old is a juvenile. Burglary of a dwelling is an either-way offence with a 14-year maximum. The youth court will normally retain it, but a 'grave crime' may be sent to the Crown Court under s.51A Crime and Disorder Act 1998 if the court considers that a sentence exceeding its powers (normally two years' detention) would be appropriate. Given a single alleged offence, no previous convictions, no property recovered, and a contested identification, the realistic submission is youth court.

Sentence if convicted. The credit principle applies: roughly one-third reduction for a guilty plea at the first hearing, tapering as the case progresses. For a 17-year-old the court will apply the sentencing guidelines for children and consider a referral order or a youth rehabilitation order before custody; a custodial sentence is a last resort. If the confession is excluded and the identification is weakened, there is a real prospect of an acquittal - so advise against a plea before the s.76/s.78 applications are resolved, and explain the credit trade-off explicitly to Ryan and to his parent or guardian.