|
You can't make an arrest on the basis of refusal to verify identity, unless a specific law is in play, or the Police officer has proof you are lying. If the police have probable cause to suspect you've committed an actual crime, then you have to ID yourself, you are entitled to know what crime you are suspected of. Yes, facial recognition does count, but it has to be a high confidence match >0.7, verified by a police officer personally, after the match is made, and verified again on arrest. If you are suspected of Anti-Social Behaviour then you have to ID (Section 50 of the Police Reform Act) If you are arrested, then you have to provide your name and address (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 2000). If you are driving, you have to ID (Section 164 of the Road Traffic Act). Providing false information or documents is a separate criminal offence. Essentially, police can't just rock up, demand ID, and ask questions without a compelling reason. |
> If the police have probable cause to suspect you've committed an actual crime, then you have to ID yourself, you are entitled to know what crime you are suspected of
It's always been my impression that this kind of ambiguous phrasing combined with the power imbalance gives the public absolutely no protection whatsoever. Let's say you don't want to provide ID: the copper could come up with some vague excuse for why they stopped you / want your ID. Good luck arguing with that