tachograph:
As far as having to identify yourself is concerned it depends on the circumstances, under sections 163 and 164 of the road traffic act you are legally required to produce your driving licence if asked to be a police constable, also if there are grounds to believe that you’ve committed a motoring offence you can be requested to supply your name and address and the name and address of the vehicle owner and failure to do so is an offence.
Other than that there is no law that says you have to identify yourself when asked to by a police officer, if they have reasonable grounds to believe you’ve committing a criminal offence they can detain you or they can arrest you but they cannot legally arrest you just for refusing to identify yourself.
At-least two of the replies to this topic clearly show that the last person you should ever ask about the law are coppers, they will often claim to have authority they do not have because they’ve been trained to believe they are superior to us ordinary law abiding folk.
Instead of arguing about it how about pointing to the legislation, other than the road traffic act which only applies to drivers, that says you must identify yourself when asked to by copper 
Did you mean me?
If so explain which bit I was wrong on?
Given that most of your post was simply repeating what I said.
Oh… your statement about identifying yourself if you’re committing a criminal offence is misleading - reasonable suspicion of being involved in an offence, past or present, means you are obliged to identify yourself.
The power to arrest in order to establish identity is derived from PACE 84. If you want the relevant section feel free to ask.
Sect 163 and 164? You are supposed to carry your licence but it was covered by the old producer, digitisation has largely superseded that. Sect 163 is simply the power to STOP any vehicle on a public road (strictly speaking that is the ONLY power it confers)
Sect 165 is what confers the legal obligation to give name and address etc.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Did you mean me?
If so explain which bit I was wrong on?
Given that most of your post was simply repeating what I said.
Monkey241:
stu675:
scotstrucker:
[ if a police officer asks if you can identify yourself then you must comply, if you cant identify yourself then you will probably be arrested and taken to a custody suite until your identity can be confirmed.
You don’t need ID to identify yourself. I can remember my own name and recall it at will without having to look it up!
My response previously:
Yes you do or if your identity can’t be established you will be arrested.
And if a copper isn’t satisfied with who you say you are, grounds for arrest still exist.
To be fair, as pointed out by Franglais you did say on a previous page “If you’re suspected of an offence you do have to produce ID at the scene”.
However I still can’t find any law that says you have to produce ID to a police officer, obviously you can be arrested if the copper has reasonable grounds to suspect you’ve committed a criminal offence but as far as I can see the onus is still on the police to find out who you are, other than having to produce drivers documents when driving or believed to have been driving I’m not aware of any offence for failure to identify.
Monkey241:
The power to arrest in order to establish identity is derived from PACE 84. If you want the relevant section feel free to ask.
Go on then I’ll ask, which section of PACE gives the police the power of arrest to establish a persons identity ?
From Met Police site:
"The information you’ll be asked for
The police officer will ask for your:
name and address
date of birth
self-defined ethnicity
You don’t have to give this information if you don’t want to; unless the police officer says they’re reporting you for an offence."
met.police.uk/advice/advice … h-process/
Ed to avoid confusion
Applies to pedestrians. Vehicle drivers still need to “produce”.
tachograph:
Monkey241:
Did you mean me?
If so explain which bit I was wrong on?
Given that most of your post was simply repeating what I said.
Monkey241:
stu675:
scotstrucker:
[ if a police officer asks if you can identify yourself then you must comply, if you cant identify yourself then you will probably be arrested and taken to a custody suite until your identity can be confirmed.
You don’t need ID to identify yourself. I can remember my own name and recall it at will without having to look it up!
My response previously:
Yes you do or if your identity can’t be established you will be arrested.
And if a copper isn’t satisfied with who you say you are, grounds for arrest still exist.
To be fair, as pointed out by Franglais you did say on a previous page “If you’re suspected of an offence you do have to produce ID at the scene”.
However I still can’t find any law that says you have to produce ID to a police officer, obviously you can be arrested if the copper has reasonable grounds to suspect you’ve committed a criminal offence but as far as I can see the onus is still on the police to find out who you are, other than having to produce drivers documents when driving or believed to have been driving I’m not aware of any offence for failure to identify.
Monkey241:
The power to arrest in order to establish identity is derived from PACE 84. If you want the relevant section feel free to ask.
Go on then I’ll ask, which section of PACE gives the police the power of arrest to establish a persons identity ?
If I recall correctly it’s section 24
Just to be clear there is no obligation to carry ID if not a driver - but you are obliged to identify yourself to the satisfaction of the officer if suspected of an offence.
The simplest and only definite way of meeting that satisfaction is some form of ID, otherwise arrest is distinctly likely.
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Franglais:
From Met Police site:
"The information you’ll be asked for
The police officer will ask for your:
name and address
date of birth
self-defined ethnicity
You don’t have to give this information if you don’t want to; unless the police officer says they’re reporting you for an offence."
met.police.uk/advice/advice … h-process/
Ed to avoid confusion
Applies to pedestrians. Vehicle drivers still need to “produce”.
That sounds like it’s specifically related to Stop and Search
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Just saw you mentioned offence regarding ID. You are arrested in order to ascertain ID - once done you are released. You COULD be done for obstructing a police officer
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
GMP Manchester City Centre posted this on twitter earlier -
In just 90 minutes, #gmptransportunit officers dealt with 30 cyclists who were found to have ridden straight through red traffic lights on Oxford Road.
Please follow the rules of the road and help us make the city a safer place to cycle #Travelsafe
Monkey241:
Just saw you mentioned offence regarding ID. You are arrested in order to ascertain ID - once done you are released. You COULD be done for obstructing a police officer
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Not sure what you are saying here?
“You are arrested to ascertain ID” ?
Surely you can only be arrested for an arrestable offence? Only if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed?
And at that time you must be told what crime you are suspected of.
In the previous link to the Met site it was saying that a Police Officer can ask for you to identify yourself, without any cause, but you don`t have to respond.
If the Officer has reasonable cause to suspect you of a crime, then they can arrest you, and then demand details.
I cant see that failing to comply with an unenforceable request is obstruction. I can see that failing to comply with a demand after being arrested is obstruction. You cant arrest someone for failing to comply with a request. That isn`t a crime.
Obstructing a Police Officer in the Course of Their Duty?
As above:
They ask you for ID, you are not obliged to comply. Duty done, no obstruction. No crime. No legal arrest.
They arrest you for reasonable suspicion of a crime, they can then demand details, and non-compliance, is a crime.
You can`t legally “bootstrap” up to 
a crime of Obstruction from nothing. You need an initial reasonable suspicion of a crime to start with.
At least that is how I read it all.
Any excuse will do to air this:
youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y
Franglais:
Monkey241:
Just saw you mentioned offence regarding ID. You are arrested in order to ascertain ID - once done you are released. You COULD be done for obstructing a police officer
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Not sure what you are saying here?
“You are arrested to ascertain ID” ?
Surely you can only be arrested for an arrestable offence? Only if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed?
And at that time you must be told what crime you are suspected of.
In the previous link to the Met site it was saying that a Police Officer can ask for you to identify yourself, without any cause, but you don`t have to respond.
If the Officer has reasonable cause to suspect you of a crime, then they can arrest you, and then demand details.
I cant see that failing to comply with an unenforceable request is obstruction. I can see that failing to comply with a demand after being arrested is obstruction. You cant arrest someone for failing to comply with a request. That isn`t a crime.
Obstructing a Police Officer in the Course of Their Duty?
As above:
They ask you for ID, you are not obliged to comply. Duty done, no obstruction. No crime. No legal arrest.
They arrest you for reasonable suspicion of a crime, they can then demand details, and non-compliance, is a crime.
You can`t legally “bootstrap” up to a crime of Obstruction from nothing. You need an initial reasonable suspicion of a crime to start with.
At least that is how I read it all.
Any excuse will do to air this:
youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y
I’m saying if you’re suspected of an offence and cannot prove your ID to the investigating officer he has the power to arrest until your identity can be proven.
Not all offences necessitate arrest (key word that) and ‘arrestable offences’ died years ago. Nor does reasonable suspicion always lead to an immediate arrest… that’s where identifying a potential suspect comes in
Pretty sure you could have read that in the previous post
Better still read Section 24 PACE and section 110 (?) SOCA
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
As for obstruction no bootstrapping whatsoever. However you read it is an irrelevance.
Better to go to the statute sources
Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk