Corrections
If something here is wrong, we want to know — and when we fix it, we say so publicly rather than quietly editing the page.
Email [email protected]. A link to the provision you think we have misread is the fastest way to get it changed.
What we have corrected
2026-08-26 · /arrested/scotland-arrest-and-custody · raised by internal
Was: The 12-hour custody ceiling was cited to s.9(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, which only defines when that period starts, not the ceiling itself.
Now: Cites s.9(2): "The person may continue to be held in police custody only if— a constable charges the person with an offence" (or a fresh authorisation is given under s.11).
2026-08-26 · /arrested/scotland-arrest-and-custody · raised by internal
Was: Who may authorise the further 12-hour extension was cited to s.11(1), which grants the power but not the rank and non-involvement conditions on who may use it.
Now: Cites s.11(2): a constable of at least inspector rank, or chief inspector if they believe the person is under 18, who has not been involved in the investigation.
2026-08-26 · /stopped/serious-violence-reduction-orders · raised by internal
Was: Said the search power carried "no requirement of suspicion on the occasion" — an inference from what the statute did not say rather than a claim it made — and referred to "you" where the statute refers to "the offender".
Now: Rewritten to track the statute: a constable may search "the person subject to" the order, without needing grounds on that occasion.
2026-08-31 · /stopped/scotland-stop-and-search · raised by internal
Was: Said the bladed- or pointed-article search power applied wherever there was reasonable suspicion of possession, stated as a single condition.
Now: The power has two limbs under s.50(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995: reasonable grounds to suspect BOTH possession AND that the person has committed or is committing the s.49(1) offence of carrying it — since carrying such an article is not itself automatically an offence (s.49 allows for good reason or lawful authority).
2026-08-31 · /after/scotland-warnings-and-fiscal-fines · raised by internal
Was: The s.302C Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 quote was the bare fragment "the alleged offender may request that it be recalled", and the claim did not say a recall request is only valid on limited grounds.
Now: Quote widened to include the deemed-acceptance trigger the request responds to, and the claim now says a request is only valid on the limited grounds s.302C(2) sets out — broadly, that you did not receive the offer and would have refused it.
2026-09-02 · /protest/the-2023-protest-offences · raised by internal
Was: The notification duty for a Serious Disruption Prevention Order named only two of the three items s.24(3) of the Public Order Act 2023 actually requires.
Now: Lists all three: your name (and any other name you use), your home address, and the address of any other premises where you regularly reside or stay.
2026-09-11 · /after/scotland-fingerprints-dna-samples · raised by internal
Was: Said that, unlike England and Wales, Scotland makes destruction the default when you are not convicted, and that in England and Wales the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 instead "sets a default retention period that has to be run down or extended". Neither comparison was sourced, and this site’s own quote of PACE s.63D(3), as inserted by the 2012 Act, points the other way: that material "must be destroyed unless it is retained under" one of the powers in ss.63E to 63O. The page also said who decides an extension, and who has to act, differ from England and Wales — also unsourced.
Now: Describes the Scottish rule on its own terms, without the comparison: under s.18(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, samples and data must be destroyed as soon as possible after a decision not to prosecute or once proceedings end without a conviction; for relevant sexual and violent offences the 3-year period can be extended only on the chief constable’s application to a sheriff.
2026-09-11 · /stopped/giving-your-name · raised by internal
Was: Beside the point that the duty to give your name and address depends on a uniformed officer believing you have been anti-social, the page added "Officers may ask at any time" and "only that trigger makes refusal an offence". Neither is in the section quoted, and the second was too broad: other powers — this same page lists Schedule 7 at ports and airports — also make refusing an offence.
Now: Asking is not the same as requiring, and this particular power to require your name and address (s.50(1) of the Police Reform Act 2002) arises only where a uniformed officer has reason to believe you have been behaving anti-socially.
2026-09-14 · Site-wide — the footer, the error page, the shared emergency bullets, Easy Read, and several duty-map details · raised by internal
Was: In at least five different wordings across thirteen surfaces, the site said legal advice at the police station is free "whatever you earn", "regardless of your income" or with "no means test" — a claim about the legal-aid means-testing regime that was never sourced anywhere on the site.
Now: PACE Code C, paragraph 6.1, is now quoted directly: "free independent legal advice is available." The Code says nothing about means, so the unsourced income limb has been removed everywhere rather than inferred from the separate legal-aid rules.
2026-09-14 · Site-wide — the footer, the error page, the shared emergency bullets, Easy Read, and several duty-map details · raised by internal
Was: About five surfaces said asking for a solicitor is "never held against you" — a naked negative with no authority in the registry to support it.
Now: Replaced with the duty the registry can actually source: PACE Code C, paragraph 6.4, "No police officer should, at any time, do or say anything with the intention of dissuading any person who is entitled to legal advice ... from obtaining legal advice."
2026-09-14 · /arrested/detained-under-section-136 · raised by internal
Was: In the body text and again in a duty-map detail, the page said there is "no equivalent of the 36- and 96-hour extensions that apply to ordinary criminal detention" — a claim about a different regime (PACE police detention) made on a page citing only Mental Health Act authorities, and supported by none of them.
Now: States positively what the Act itself provides and stops there: a maximum of 24 hours, extendable once by up to 12 hours, and only on the examining doctor’s judgment.
2026-09-14 · /after/bail-and-released-under-investigation · raised by internal
Was: Said that release under investigation has "no equivalent clock — no 3 months, no 6 months, nothing that forces a decision by a fixed date" and that there is "no legal pressure on the timetable". The same claim also appeared in the page description. Nothing in the registry supported a statement about what the Act does not do.
Now: Reframed to what the provisions positively say: the statutory bail-period clock is defined for people released ON BAIL and runs from a bail start date, and release under investigation is a different status — release without bail — that those provisions are not written to apply to. The practical warning to keep your paperwork is unchanged.
2026-09-14 · /after/scotland-bail-and-liberation · raised by internal
Was: A Scottish page made two unsourced claims about ENGLISH law: that release under investigation in England has "no statutory clock at all", and that there is "no equivalent" in Scotland to the 3-month/6-month bail clock. The second also appeared in a duty-map detail.
Now: States Scotland’s own position from its own authorities — conditions on an investigative liberation expire automatically after 28 days, and an undertaking has no statutory maximum of its own — and links to the England & Wales page rather than characterising what it says.
2026-09-14 · /scotland-what-you-must-answer · raised by internal
Was: Said a private consultation with a solicitor in Scottish police custody "costs nothing regardless of your income", and that asking "is never held against you". The cited authority, s.44(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, establishes the right to consult but says nothing about cost, and PACE Code C — which sources the equivalent England & Wales statement — does not extend to Scotland.
Now: Claims only the right the authority carries: you are entitled to a private consultation with a solicitor at any time you are in police custody. A search on 14 September 2026 found no Scottish source stating in terms that police-station advice is free; if one is found, the statement will be restored with that source behind it.
2026-09-14 · /arrested/your-rights-in-custody · raised by internal
Was: Said the duty solicitor "is paid whether or not you are charged" — a claim about how legal aid funding works, with no authority anywhere in the registry to support it.
Now: The claim is removed. The page now says only that the advice is independent (PACE Code C paragraph 6.1) and does not characterise how the solicitor is paid.
2026-09-14 · /arrested/your-rights-in-custody · raised by internal
Was: Said "You can also name your own solicitor rather than take the duty one" — nothing on the page, or in its dutyMap, sourced a right to choose a named solicitor over the duty solicitor.
Now: The claim is removed from the page, and the matching Easy Read line ("You can also ask for your own solicitor instead of the duty solicitor") is removed with it.
2026-09-14 · /tools/rights-card · raised by internal
Was: The Scotland card said the no-obligation-to-answer duty came "with no adverse-inference warning attached to it as there is in England" — a claim about ENGLISH law, carried by a Scottish authority (s.34 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016) that says nothing about England.
Now: The comparative is dropped from the card, which now states only what its own authority supports: the duty is limited to five specified details. The comparison is provable — from CJPOA 1994’s own extent clause — and is made properly, with that authority, on /scotland-arrest-and-custody and /interview/scotland-police-questioning. The England & Wales pages that used to state the comparative flatly (/must-answer, /interview/the-caution-and-no-comment) now signpost those Scotland pages instead of asserting it themselves.
2026-09-14 · /easy-read/your-rights-in-custody · raised by internal
Was: Two lines — "An appropriate adult is not a legal adviser and cannot replace a solicitor" and "The police officers dealing with you cannot act as your appropriate adult" — asserted more than the standard page states, after that page’s appropriate-adult content was cut back to what the registry could source.
Now: Both lines are removed. The Easy Read variant now says only that an appropriate adult must be involved if you are under 18 or vulnerable, matching the standard page.
2026-09-14 · /must-answer · raised by internal
Was: Said only that "refusing to give your name once that requirement is properly made is an offence". Section 50(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002 makes giving a FALSE OR INACCURATE name or address an offence on exactly the same footing as refusing. Because the site named only the refusal limb, a reader could have concluded that giving a made-up name was a safe way out of a requirement they could not lawfully refuse. It is not.
Now: Names both limbs: refusing, or giving a false or inaccurate name or address, once the requirement is properly made, is an offence punishable by a fine up to level 3. The quote behind the claim was widened at the same time — it had begun mid-sentence at "is guilty of an offence", carrying the penalty but not the conduct it attaches to.
2026-09-14 · /stopped/stop-and-search · raised by internal
Was: Described the section 50 offence as "refusing, or giving a false name". The provision is wider in two ways: it covers an INACCURATE name as well as a false one, and it covers the ADDRESS as well as the name. A reader who gave a real name with a wrong address, or an honestly mistaken one, could have read the page as saying they were outside the offence.
Now: Now says "refusing, or giving a false or inaccurate name or address". Published alongside the same correction to /must-answer and /stopped/giving-your-name, which carried the narrower wording too.
2026-09-14 · /stopped/giving-your-name · raised by internal
Was: Carried the same narrow wording as /stopped/stop-and-search: "refusing, or giving a false name", where section 50(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002 also covers an inaccurate name, and covers the address as well as the name.
Now: Now says "refusing, or giving a false or inaccurate name or address", matching the provision and the other two pages that state this offence.
2026-09-14 · /easy-read/giving-your-name · raised by internal
Was: The Easy Read version said only "Giving a false name is also a crime" — narrower again than the standard pages, on the surface written for the readers least likely to go and check the longer version. It also fed the site’s machine-readable llms-full.txt export, so an assistant answering on a reader’s behalf would have repeated the narrower rule.
Now: "Giving a false or wrong name or address is also a crime." The machine-readable export is generated from this file, so it carries the correction automatically.
2026-09-16 · /stopped/facial-recognition · raised by internal
Was: The page said a section 60 authorisation was "the one real trigger" for the power to require removal of a face covering, and told readers it was worth asking whether one was in force "before assuming you must comply". Section 60AA(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has TWO limbs, and the quote stored on this site carried only the first. The second is an authorisation given under section 60AA(3) in its own right, by an officer of at least inspector rank, on a lower trigger than section 60 and with no section 60 authorisation needed. A reader correctly told that no section 60 authorisation was in force could have refused to remove a face covering when refusing was a criminal offence.
Now: The quote carries both limbs, a separate authority quotes section 60AA(3) in full, and the page describes two routes to an authorisation rather than one. The advice is to ask which authorisation is in force, and the page states plainly that if a requirement is made under either route, failing to remove the item is an offence.
2026-09-16 · /arrested/how-long-they-can-hold-you · raised by internal
Was: Two claims, and the body text, said without qualification that you or your solicitor must be given the opportunity to make representations "orally or in writing" before a review or an extension. Sections 40(13) and 42(7) of PACE both open "subject to" a further subsection, and the site's quotes began after those words. Sections 40(14) and 42(8) let the officer refuse to hear ORAL representations from the detained person if they consider them unfit to make them by reason of their condition or behaviour.
Now: Both quotes now carry the "subject to" opening and the subsection it points at, and the claims and body text carry the qualifier. The page also states the limit of that power, which the statute makes narrow: it reaches only the detained person's own oral representations, never the solicitor's, and never anything put in writing.
2026-09-16 · /arrested/your-rights-in-custody · raised by internal
Was: The page said "If you are under 18 or a vulnerable adult, an appropriate adult must be involved in your custody." Nothing on the page sourced it, and it survived the 2026-09-14 sourcing pass over this very page because the build checks only see Duty Map items, not body text. "Vulnerable adult" was also the wrong term: PACE Code C says "vulnerable person", and defines that as a person of any age.
Now: The claim is carried by two Duty Map items quoting PACE Code C paragraph 3.15 (the custody officer's duties where the detainee is a juvenile or a vulnerable person) and paragraph 1.5 (anyone who APPEARS to be under 18 is treated as a juvenile unless there is clear evidence they are older). Both are needed: 3.15 states the duty but states it of a "juvenile", and only 1.5 makes that mean "under 18". The page no longer says the appropriate adult must be present throughout, which Code C does not say.
2026-09-16 · /easy-read/your-rights-in-custody · raised by internal
Was: Two things were wrong here, and the second is a correction about a correction. The Easy Read line said an appropriate adult "must be with you", which is more than PACE Code C paragraph 3.15 requires — the Code requires that the appropriate adult is told the grounds for detention and the detainee's whereabouts and that their attendance to SEE the detainee is secured, not that they are present throughout. Separately, the erratum published on this site on 2026-09-14 said this line had been cut back to say "only that an appropriate adult must be involved". It had not been. That published correction misdescribed the state of the page.
Now: The line now says you must have an appropriate adult, with a second line saying you can talk to them privately at any time — both within what paragraph 3.15 carries and no wider than the standard page. The 2026-09-14 erratum for this page remains published, and this entry records that its description of the fix was inaccurate.
2026-09-16 · /arrested/scotland-your-rights-in-custody · raised by internal
Was: The page said that where a constable believes a person in custody is under 16, intimation must be sent regardless of whether they ask for it — and cited section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, which says nothing about age and nothing about compulsion. The statement was true; the provision cited for it did not carry it.
Now: The claim is cited to section 38(2) and (3), which do carry it: intimation must be sent where a constable believes the person is under 16, regardless of whether they request it, and the person it is sent to is a parent. Both subsections are quoted with both of their limbs, so the contrast with the ordinary request-based rule is visible rather than cut out.
2026-09-30 · /at-the-door/police-entry · raised by internal
Was: The page said a s.8 PACE search warrant can only be issued once a justice of the peace is satisfied of two things: that an indictable offence has been committed, and that the material sought is likely to be relevant evidence. Section 8(1) sets out five conditions, all of which must be met. The quote stored for the claim ran from limb (a) straight to limb (c), so the three that were missing could not be seen: that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation, that it is not subject to legal privilege or excluded or special procedure material, and that one of the conditions in s.8(3) applies. Saying "only" while naming two of five described the warrant test as easier to satisfy than it is — and hid that legal privilege is a bar, which is a protection for the reader.
Now: The whole of s.8(1) is quoted, all five conditions and the operative words, and the claim, its detail, the body prose and the which-power tool all say five rather than two and name the three that were missing.
2026-10-16 · /stopped/stopped-in-a-vehicle · raised by internal
Was: The England and Wales duty to stop a vehicle was stated as applying when "a constable in uniform" requires it. Section 163(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as it applies in England and Wales reads "a constable in uniform or a traffic officer": the words "or a traffic officer" were inserted by the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the stored quote stopped before them, so the duty read narrower than the law makes it. The same wording appeared on /must-answer, the England and Wales rights card, the which-power tool, and the Easy Read version of this page (which said "a police officer in uniform").
Now: Quotes the full England and Wales wording and says a driver must stop when a constable in uniform or a traffic officer requires it, on all five. The Scotland duty is unchanged, because the words were inserted for England and Wales only and the Scottish text of section 163(1) ends at "constable in uniform". The Scotland driving page, the Scotland hub and the which-power tool had called this law identical in both jurisdictions; they now note the difference in the duty to stop.
2026-10-16 · /stopped/facial-recognition · raised by internal
Was: The Duty Map listed the section 60AA power to require removal of a face covering, and the penalty for refusing it, under "Lawful to refuse — but it costs you", a column described as "Not an offence". Refusing to remove an item when validly required under section 60AA is an offence under section 60AA(7), punishable by up to a month’s imprisonment or a level 3 fine, or both. The page text already said so; the map contradicted it.
Now: Both items now sit under "You must", and the requirement is worded as a duty that keeps the conditions the section states: a live authorisation, a constable in uniform, and an item the constable reasonably believes you are wearing wholly or mainly to conceal your identity.
2026-10-17 · / · raised by internal
Was: The third Duty Map column was headed "Lawful to refuse — but it costs you" and described as "Not an offence, but it carries a penalty or an inference"; the home page called it "It costs you either way" and "Lawful to refuse, but it carries a penalty or an inference". Several items in it are offences in themselves, among them refusing to name the driver when required under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and knowingly failing to comply with a section 49 notice.
Now: The column is headed "Refusing costs you": "Refusing may carry a penalty, allow an inference to be drawn against you, or be an offence in itself."
2026-10-17 · /stopped/facial-recognition · raised by internal
Was: Two statements of how the power works (that police need no grounds relating to you personally before a live facial recognition camera scans your face, and that an inspector can give a section 60AA authorisation without any section 60 authorisation) sat under "Lawful to refuse — but it costs you", a column described as "Not an offence". Under "You can refuse", the page said you could cover your face or avoid a camera "unless" an authorisation was in force, which implied that an authorisation itself stops you doing so. Section 60AA creates no such duty: it lets a constable require you to remove an item. The penalty was given as "a level 3 fine" where section 60AA(7) says "a fine not exceeding level 3".
Now: The two statements sit in a new block, "How the power works", which makes no claim about refusing. The "unless" item is replaced there by what section 60AA(1) says: while an authorisation under section 60 or section 60AA(3) is in force for a locality and period, the section 60AA(2) powers can be used anywhere in that locality at any time in that period. The penalty reads "a fine not exceeding level 3".
2026-10-17 · /stopped/serious-violence-reduction-orders · raised by internal
Was: The power to search a person subject to an order, and to detain them for that search, sat under "You must", a column described as "Refusing is a criminal offence", with no offence cited. Two statements of the power’s terms (it requires no reasonable grounds, and it applies only in a public place) sat under a column described as "Not an offence, but it carries a penalty or an inference".
Now: All four sit, unchanged, in "How the power works". The page lists nothing under the three columns.
2026-10-17 · /stopped/stop-and-search · raised by internal
Was: The officer’s power to detain you for the purpose of the search sat under "You must", a column described as "Refusing is a criminal offence". It states a power the officer has, not a duty on you.
Now: It sits, unchanged, in "How the power works", with its note that walking away from a lawful detention risks arrest.
2026-10-17 · /borders/schedule-7 · raised by internal
Was: The purpose of the power (to determine whether you appear to be concerned in terrorism, not because you are already suspected) sat under a column described as "Not an offence", on a page where wilfully failing to comply is an offence. The penalty item said "on summary conviction" and "up to three months’ imprisonment" but quoted only the imprisonment limb of paragraph 18(2), so the summary-conviction words were not in its quote and the fine was left out.
Now: The purpose sits in "How the power works". The penalty quotes the whole of paragraph 18(2): on summary conviction, up to three months’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
2026-10-17 · /arrested/detained-under-section-136 · raised by internal
Was: The section 136 power itself sat under "You must" ("Refusing is a criminal offence"). Three statements of its limits (it is not an arrest power, it reaches you only in a public place, and when a police station may be used as a place of safety) sat under "You can refuse" ("No penalty for saying no"). The 24-hour maximum and its 12-hour extension sat under a column described as "Not an offence". None of the six is a duty on you or a choice you make.
Now: All six sit, unchanged, in "How the power works". "You must" keeps the offence of obstructing a person acting under the Mental Health Act.
2026-10-17 · /stopped/scotland-stop-and-search · raised by internal
Was: Four statements of what the search powers allow (detention for a drugs search, a search while being taken to or from a place, and the stolen-property and bladed-article powers) sat under "You must" ("Refusing is a criminal offence"). The one item that is an offence, physically resisting, obstructing or hindering a constable carrying out a lawful search, sat under a column described as "Not an offence".
Now: The obstruction offence sits under "You must". The four power statements sit, unchanged, in "How the power works".
2026-10-17 · /scotland-what-you-must-answer · raised by internal
Was: The page said "Refusing to answer a Schedule 7 examination is itself an offence, punishable on summary conviction by up to three months’ imprisonment", but the only words it quoted were "imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months". That is the penalty limb of paragraph 18(2): it does not create the offence, does not say "on summary conviction", and leaves out the fine.
Now: Two items. The offence, citing paragraph 18(1): wilfully failing to comply with a duty under Schedule 7 is itself a criminal offence. The penalty, citing the whole of paragraph 18(2): on summary conviction, up to three months’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
2026-10-17 · /must-answer · raised by internal
Was: The Schedule 7 offence was stated as "Refusing to answer a Schedule 7 examination is itself an offence", with a note that it was "punishable on summary conviction by up to three months’ imprisonment". The provision quoted, paragraph 18(1), creates the offence in the words "wilfully fails to comply with a duty" and says nothing about the penalty. The penalty, in paragraph 18(2), also includes a fine.
Now: The offence is stated in paragraph 18(1)’s own words: wilfully failing to comply with a duty under Schedule 7 is itself a criminal offence. A separate item cites the whole of paragraph 18(2): on summary conviction, up to three months’ imprisonment, a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.
2026-10-17 · /at-the-door/immigration-enforcement · raised by internal
Was: The limits on an immigration officer’s power to enter and search business premises without a warrant sat under "You can refuse", a column described as "No penalty for saying no". They say when the power applies, not something you can refuse.
Now: The item sits, unchanged, in "How the power works".
2026-10-17 · /at-the-door/scotland-immigration-enforcement · raised by internal
Was: The limits on an immigration officer’s power to enter and search business premises without a warrant sat under "You can refuse", a column described as "No penalty for saying no". They say when the power applies, not something you can refuse.
Now: The item sits, unchanged, in "How the power works".
2026-10-17 · /does-pace-apply-in-scotland · raised by internal
Was: The statement that PACE extends to England and Wales only, subject to the exceptions in section 120, sat under "You can refuse", a column described as "No penalty for saying no".
Now: It sits, unchanged, in "How the power works".
2026-10-19 · /at-the-door/immigration-enforcement · raised by internal
Was: The page described two ways for immigration officers to enter a building, a warrant or an internal authorisation for business premises, and said that the warrantless route was specific to business premises, "not homes in general", and that an officer with neither had "no power under this route to come in". It also said that not opening the door to an officer with neither was not obstruction. Sections 28C, 28E and 28F of the Immigration Act 1971 give powers to enter and search without a warrant or that authorisation, including homes, which the page did not mention. It also said the business-premises power was for arresting someone for specific immigration offences; it also covers arresting a person liable to be detained under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, which is not an offence.
Now: The page explains all three powers and their conditions, quoted under "How the power works": entry to any premises to arrest someone for an offence under section 25 or 25A (section 28C), entry to the premises where someone was arrested away from a police station (section 28E), and entry to premises occupied or controlled by someone arrested for a section 25 or 25A offence (section 28F). The obstruction sentence is replaced by one that says whether an officer is lawfully acting depends on whether they have a power of entry, and the page notes that an officer exercising these powers may use reasonable force if necessary. The item about asking to see the business-premises authorisation no longer says it is written. The business-premises power is quoted with all four of its purposes and all four conditions.
2026-10-19 · /at-the-door/scotland-immigration-enforcement · raised by internal
Was: The page described two ways for immigration officers to enter a building, a warrant or an internal authorisation for business premises, and said that outside the business-premises route "entry requires a warrant". It also said that not opening the door to an officer with neither was not obstruction. Sections 28C, 28E and 28F of the Immigration Act 1971 give powers to enter and search without a warrant or that authorisation, including homes, which the page did not mention. It also said the business-premises power was for arresting someone for specific immigration offences; it also covers arresting a person liable to be detained under paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, which is not an offence.
Now: The page explains all three powers and their conditions, quoted under "How the power works": entry to any premises to arrest someone for an offence under section 25 or 25A (section 28C), entry to the premises where someone was arrested away from a police station (section 28E), and entry to premises occupied or controlled by someone arrested for a section 25 or 25A offence (section 28F). The obstruction sentence is replaced by one that says whether an officer is lawfully acting depends on whether they have a power of entry, and the page notes that an officer exercising these powers may use reasonable force if necessary. The item about asking to see the business-premises authorisation no longer says it is written. The business-premises power is quoted with all four of its purposes and all four conditions.
2026-10-21 · /stopped/stopped-in-a-vehicle · raised by internal
Was: The item "You do not have to answer the questions put to you, though there can be consequences if you do not." sat under "You can refuse", a column described as "No penalty for saying no". The item itself said there can be consequences, so the column heading contradicted it.
Now: The item sits, unchanged, under "Refusing costs you".
2026-10-21 · /stopped/drink-and-drug-driving · raised by internal
Was: The item "You do not have to answer the questions put to you, though there can be consequences if you do not." sat under "You can refuse", a column described as "No penalty for saying no". The item itself said there can be consequences, so the column heading contradicted it.
Now: The item sits, unchanged, under "Refusing costs you".
2026-10-21 · /after/cautions-and-dbs · raised by internal
Was: Four items sat under "Refusing costs you": that a caution can only be given for an offence you have admitted, and three about when a caution appears on a standard or enhanced DBS certificate. They describe what ACCEPTING a caution means for your criminal record, so the page read as if declining a caution leads to a DBS record.
Now: All four sit, unchanged, under "What the law says". "Refusing costs you" is empty on this page; "You can refuse" keeps the item that you can decline a caution if you do not admit the offence.
2026-10-21 · /after/scotland-warnings-and-fiscal-fines · raised by internal
Was: Ten items sat under "Refusing costs you" that are about accepting, not refusing: what happens if you do nothing about a conditional offer of a fixed penalty and are deemed to have accepted it, that accepting or being deemed to accept a fiscal fine or other direct measure is not a conviction (though it can be disclosed to a court in proceedings for a further offence within 2 years), that paying discharges your liability, how long the police keep a recorded police warning and whether it appears on a Level 2 or PVG scheme disclosure, and the Scottish disclosure law behind it (the meaning of "caution", the repeal of Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 for Scotland, what a Level 2 disclosure contains, and the chief constable information route).
Now: All ten sit, unchanged, under "What the law says". The one item about refusing a recorded police warning (that the police can convert it into a fixed penalty notice or report the case to the procurator fiscal) stays under "Refusing costs you".
2026-10-21 · /stopped/stop-and-account · raised by internal
Was: The item "Give your name, address or date of birth simply because you have been stopped and asked." cited PACE Code A (2023) paragraph 4.3. That paragraph says a person is under no obligation to give those details for the purpose of completing the stop-and-search record. It does not concern a stop and account, so the source did not support the claim.
Now: The item reads "You do not have to tell an officer your name simply because you have been stopped and asked it." and cites the GOV.UK stop-and-question guidance, which lists "what your name is" among the questions an officer might ask and then says "You do not have to stop or answer any questions." It no longer mentions address or date of birth, which that guidance does not.
2026-10-21 · / · raised by internal
Was: The home page said "Every page answers three questions", but some pages, among them the serious violence reduction orders page, have none of the three columns. It also described the "You can refuse" column, on every page, as "No penalty for saying no". On the pages about police questioning in England and Wales, that column says you need not answer, while the "Refusing costs you" column says silence can allow an inference to be drawn against you.
Now: The home page says "Every page answers the same questions". The "You can refuse" column is described as "Saying no is lawful and is not an offence, but it is not always free of consequences: read each item in full."