Part 1

On Saturday3July 2021, a laptop computer and some recording equipment were stolen from the premises of a design company.There was no evidence that the premises had been burgled and the police determined that someone with access to the premises had most likely taken the goods.Records showed that five members of the design company staff, including a design assistant named Richard,were in attendance at the premises on3July for an optional training session delivered by two external visitors.

Three days later, the police found some stolen goods at a second-hand shopon the High Street, including the laptop from the design company.The shop provided a record showing that the laptop had been sold at 2pm on4July.However, the name of the seller was not legible in the records and the people working at the shop were unable to provide any further details about the seller.

The police obtainedCCTVfootage from a carpark across the road from the shop. The footage showed a car registered toRichardentering the carpark at 1.30pm on4July.It also showedRichardclimbing out of the car with a holdall and walking in the opposite direction to the second-hand shop.

The police visited the design company and spoke to the owner. The owner informed the police thatRichardhad worked for the company for two years and that he had generally been an honest and trustworthy employee.However, he had been disciplinedthreemonthsbeforefor taking stationary and some small items home for personal use.

The police foundRichardworking at his desk. They asked him if he would come to the police station with them to answer some questions about the missing equipment.WhenRichardrefused to come to the station, the police informed him that he was under arrest and cautioned him.As they were walking to the police car,Richardasked why he was being arrested. One of the officers replied that the reason for his arrest was obvious.

The police took a longer route than usual to the police stationbecause one of the officers wanted tostop at the shopping centre, where a disturbance had taken place that morning.Several people had been injured, andthe officerwanted to check that his brother, who worked in the centre, was unharmed.The officer went inside the centre for ten minutes, while the second officer remained in the car withRichard.While in the car, the second officer askedRichardif he ever visited the second-handshopon the High Street.Richardsaid that he 'might have been there once or twice' and the officer recorded the comment in his notebook.

When they arrived at the station, the custody officer opened a custody record.Richardwas put in a cell, where he stayed for five hours, during which he was checked on every two hours.After five hours, he asked if he could phone hiswifeto let her know of his whereabouts.The police informed him that he could not make a phone call until after he had been interviewed because speaking to someone could lead to interference with the investigation.Richardwas interviewed for an hour and a half without any breaks. He denied taking the goods a number of times andclaimedthat he had parked in the carpark to meet friends for lunch.The police continued to question him,repeatedlyinsistingthat he was the one who had stolen the laptop. Near the end of the interview,Richardsaid, 'I think I need to speak to a lawyer now.' The police questioned him for a further five minutes before they stopped the interview.

Richardwas subsequently charged.

Applying the law to the facts of the case, advise as to whether the police acted lawfully in their treatment ofRichard.

Please note: this coursework requires you to illustrate knowledge of the areas of criminal process taught on the English Legal Process module.You are not expected to show knowledge of substantive criminal law.Therefore, you are not required to research the underlying crime committed in the scenario.