Is mere accusation without evidence other than testimony of the accuser, grounds for arrest in the UK?
<p>Several years ago I was stopped in public by the police. Someone had 'identified' me as abusing them in terms of their gender two years before that. Had that happened, I suppose it would have been classified as a hate crime. In fact, it was a case of mistaken identity and a senior police officer phoned me the next morning to say so and apologise.</p>
<p>My concern was that, although the previous day I had fully co-operated with the police, one of them said, &quot;We will not arrest you yet, but you will have to come in for an interview&quot;.  There was no interview because the case was dropped the following morning. There was certainly no arrest or any further proceedings of any kind.</p>
<p>However I was quite shocked with the idea that I could perhaps have been arrested on the grounds of an allegation, merely because someone else made the accusation without any evidence other than their own word.</p>
<p><strong>Question</strong></p>
<p>Is it the case in the UK that someone could call the police and have someone arrested merely on the basis of an accusation of a verbal hate crime, even though there is no evidence whatsoever apart from the word of the accuser?</p>
<hr />
<p>EDIT</p>
<p>The accusation was something like, &quot;Two years ago this person said hateful things to me about my being transgender&quot;. That's all I ever found out. The accuser didn't name me because they didn't know the name of the person who said it. Apparently it was a chance encounter in the street but I don't know the details and the police wouldn't tell me.  The accuser had spotted me walking in the street and called the police based on that.</p>

<p><strong>Is mere accusation without evidence other than testimony of the accuser, grounds for arrest in the UK?</strong></p>
<p>It depends on the circumstances, especially when dealing with non-recent allegations where independent and corroborative evidence may be difficult to locate and/or recover, but in my experience it is very rarely an option to arrest soley on the say-so of one complainant unless there is a compelling reason to do so. It's also fraught with potential risks - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Midland" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Operation Midland</a> being a prime example of when it can go horribly wrong.</p>
<p>Also, no-one can &quot;<em>call the police and have someone arrested</em>&quot; in the <a href="/questions/tagged/united-kingdom" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" rel="tag">united-kingdom</a> - the police are under a duty to carry out a &quot;proportionate investigation&quot; in to allegations of crime and then make their own minds up on how to proceed based on the available intelligence and evidence.</p>
<p>Focussing on <a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag">england-and-wales</a>, the most commonly used power of arrest* is at <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24?timeline=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">s.24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984</a> which, along with <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pace-code-g-2012" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PACE Code G</a>, requires an officer to:</p>
<ol>
<li>Reasonably <em>suspect</em> that an offence is being, has been or will be committed.</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>On a scale of 0 to 10 - with 10 being total knowledge and 0 being no opinion at all - suspicion may be as low as 2 or 3 whereas belief starts at 7 or 8.</li>
</ul>
<ol start="2">
<li>And reasonably <em>believe</em> an arrest is <em>necessary</em>.</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>One commonly used mnemonic for the <em>Necessity Test</em> under s.24 is:</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>ID COP PLAN</strong>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>I</strong>nvestigation - prompt and effective investigation of offence or conduct</p>
<p><strong>D</strong>isappearance - prevent prosecution being hindered by disappearance of a person</p>
<p><strong>C</strong>hild / Vulnerable person - protection of</p>
<p><strong>O</strong>bstruction of highway</p>
<p><strong>P</strong>hysical injury to themselves or someone else</p>
<p><strong>P</strong>ublic (in)decency</p>
<p><strong>L</strong>oss or damage to property</p>
<p><strong>A</strong>ddress not know</p>
<p><strong>N</strong>ame not known</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I cannot say why the officer did not make an arrest in the OP's case.  I surmise that he did not deem it <em>necessary</em> based on the above mandatory criteria but rather considered that a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/voluntary-police-interview-your-rights" rel="nofollow noreferrer">voluntary attendance interview</a> would be the most appropriate course of action given the circumstances and information available to him at the time.</p>
<p><sub>*There are other statutory and common-law powers of arrest, but they all follow the same procedures as above</sub></p>

<p>Witness statements are a form of evidence. It depends on what the statement was, for example &quot;Chasly committed a verbal hate crime&quot; is not sufficient evidence for an arrest. Sworn testimony that Chasly performed specific act constituting a crime could be sufficient evidence, e.g. &quot;I saw Chasly bludgeon that person to death&quot;. The officer has to have reasonable grounds for arresting a person, and that could be witness testimony.</p>

united-kingdom police discrimination arrest crime