What is to be Done . . . About the Police

[detective-boy]

(The standard for arrest is "probable cause" in the USA, and "reasonable and probable grounds" in Canada, both comprable to our old charging standard.)

I'm not sure of the exact definitions of "probable cause" or "reasonable and probable grounds" ... but I'd stake an awful lot on the fact that they are, in reality, just different words for the same concept as our "reasonable grounds". For them to be significantly more demanding would simply mean their system was unworkable ... and they clearly do work.

 

[Azrael]

For them to be significantly more demanding would simply mean their system was unworkable ... and they clearly do work.

Or it would mean that such a system is workable after all.

Both PRG and PC mean, roughly, "reasonable belief". The Canadian courts have been clear that "mere suspicion isn't enough", and in the USA probable cause is the charging/extradition standard. The USA also has our "reasonable suspicion" standard, but it's only enough to justify a frisk or a terry stop. Arrest, a full search, and warrants require the higher standard.

 

[detective-boy]

Both PRG and PC mean, roughly, "reasonable belief". The Canadian courts have been clear that "mere suspicion isn't enough", and in the USA probable cause is the charging/extradition standard. The USA also has our "reasonable suspicion" standard, but it's only enough to justify a frisk or a terry stop. Arrest, a full search, and warrants require the higher standard.

Again I think we are probably talking about different definitions of the same word or phrase.

In the UK we've occasionally had "belief" used, but not often. The draughtsmen have stuck to suspicion and the Courts have expanded on it - it's definition in the UK pretty much amounts to "belief" in practice.

Even for a stop and search the expansion on the phrase demonstrates that it is not just a "Oh they might have done" concept:

2.2 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend on the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information, and/or intelligence which are relevant to the likelihood of finding an article of a certain kind or, in the case of searches under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, to the likelihood that the person is a terrorist.

Reasonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of personal factors. It must rely on intelligence or information about, or some specific behaviour by, the person concerned. For example, other than in a
witness description of a suspect, a person’s race, age, appearance, or the fact that the person is known to have a previous conviction, cannot be used alone or in combination with each other, or in combination with any other factor, as the reason for searching that person. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity. A person’s religion cannot be considered as reasonable grounds for suspicion and should never be considered as a reason to stop or stop and
search an individual.

2.3 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or
intelligence and on the basis of the behaviour of a person. For example, if an officer encounters someone on the street at night who is obviously trying to hide something, the officer may (depending on the other surrounding circumstances) base such suspicion on the fact that this kind of behaviour is often linked to stolen or prohibited articles being carried. Similarly, for the purposes of section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, suspicion that a person is a terrorist may arise from the person’s behaviour at or near a location which has been identified as a potential target for terrorists.

2.4 However, reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate and current intelligence or information, such as information describing an article being carried, a suspected offender, or a person who has been seen carrying a type of article known to have been stolen recently from premises in the area. Searches based on accurate and current intelligence or information are more likely to be effective. Targeting searches in a particular area at specified crime problems increases their effectiveness and minimises inconvenience to law-abiding members of the public. It also helps in
justifying the use of searches both to those who are searched and to the public. This does not however prevent stop and search powers being exercised in other locations where such powers may be exercised and reasonable suspicion exists.

The grounds for arrest are usually considered to be at least this and usually a bit more.

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/pub...cing/pace-code-a-amended-jan-2009?view=Binary

 

[tangentlama]

If today's Justice Questions is any indicator, the private sector. Straw reckons the public sector will be allowed to compete for the contracts!

It was not good for USA to move down these lines. Once we move into US-style handling of crime by private sector, then the need to perpetuate and keep a supply of criminals for the 'prison business' (i.e. 'prison labour' like John Crow years after abolition of slavery; testing drugs on psychiatric criminals; rich-crims pay for luxury-prisons/poor-crims work for £100 per month in prison call centres etc) will overshadow the introduction of methods that have been proven to reduce crime (such as reducing poverty, increasing access to education, using the European model for rehabbing prisoners etc).

 

[Azrael]

Again I think we are probably talking about different definitions of the same word or phrase.

I'm sure probable cause/reasonable and probable grounds aren't that much higher, but they do seem to be different in practice from our "reasonable suspicion".

For example, from The Policeman's Blog, (he's transferred to Canada): "Unlike in the UK, a simple allegation isn’t enough to make an arrest and without any corroboration I couldn’t charge anyone (you need the same level of evidence to arrest as you do to charge here)."

Why do I think a switch would improve things? If arrests were linked with charging, as they used to be, guilty people would end up in court a lot more quickly, instead of sitting around on police bail and hoping the CPS forgets what they're supposed to have done. Likewise, innocent people wouldn't be left in limbo, would know the details of what they were accused of, and as the standard would be higher than for police bail, fewer would be affected.

And as a useful bonus, all the arguments for locking alleged terrorists up for months without charge would evaporate.

 

[detective-boy]

"Unlike in the UK, a simple allegation isn’t enough to make an arrest and without any corroboration I couldn’t charge anyone (you need the same level of evidence to arrest as you do to charge here)."

I think that reflects their lower level needed for charge (which I understand is far more like our old prima facie case, though I may be wrong) than any significantly higher level for arrest.

As for corroboration, that is a whole other isue. In England and Wales (and Northern Ireland I think) there is no general requirement for corroboration - in fact one of the cornerstones of our legal system is that the word of one honest man is sufficient to defeat the ends of a gang of rogues. Although there are some minor exceptions, there is simply no legal requirement.

In other jurisdictions, including Scotland, and apparently Canada, there is a requirement. From my experience of Scttiosh law, the upshot is that the law turns itself inside out making something fit as "corroboration" in cases where the simple fact is that there isn't any.

I must say that I would not want a legal requirement for corroboration of all evidence in all cases - there are more than enough circumstances in which it simply could not exist in reality that we would either have to go through the same sorts of semantic machinations or lose significant pieces of evidence and significant numbers of cases - and it is far more realistic for the issue to be treated as a matter of the weight of evidence - if there is corroboration the jury are more likely to put more weight on it, if there isn't they will be more sceptical.

 

[detective-boy]

Likewise, innocent people wouldn't be left in limbo, would know the details of what they were accused of ...

I agree that anything that reduced delays and put someone in front of a Court (with the option of entering an early guilty plea and saving all the time and expense of investigating something that is not actually contested in the first place!) is a desirable outcome. The system we have, with it's absolute requirement on all the evidence being found and put before the CPS for a decision before anyone even asks the defendant if they are guilty, is stupid.

But it is a misconception to say that because they are not charged, prisoners have no idea of what they are accused of. The law REQUIRES that the reason for arrest (i.e. the nature of the offence, usually including the date, place and details of any victim) AND the grounds for it (i.e. the basic facts which give raise to the reasonable grounds to suspect) are given on arrest (or the arrest would be rendered unlawful) AND to the Custody Officer on arrival at the Station. They are recorded in the Custody Record, to which prisoner and lawyer have access. They are repeated and, if appropriate as a result of ongoing investigations, extended during the custody reviews which have to take place after six hours and thereafter at 9 hour intervals. If there is a requirement to extend custody beyond 24 hours, they are expanded upon by the Superintendent and when it gets to 36 hours and goes before the Magistrates Court, they have to be outlined in some detail or an extension will not be granted.

In addition, there is a requirement that sufficient pre-interview disclosure of facts be provided prior to an interview to allow a defence solicitor to "properly advise their client". This doesn't mean everything, by any means, but if nothing more than arrest grounds are given the solicitor will advise no comment and the Court will not be allowed to draw any adverse inference from the silence, so it is always the case that large amounts of the evidence are invariably disclosed before or during the first round of interviews.

Whilst here may be some cases, especially terrorism cases, where there are large chunks of the evidence which are NOT disclosed (either because they are sensitive information obtained from informants, etc. or because they are obtained from telephone intercepst which cannot (by law) be mentioned in evidence)), there is absolutely no way that the suspect has spent days and weeks in custody and "has absolutely no idea why" as is often implied by defence solicitors, particularly those with particular causes to pursue.

 

[Azrael]

I think that reflects their lower level needed for charge (which I understand is far more like our old prima facie case, though I may be wrong) than any significantly higher level for arrest.

I'm pretty sure (call it a reasonable belief ) that Canada use the prima facie standard to charge. This is the standard I'd like to see England return to, and if it's not significantly higher that reasonable suspicion, it shouldn't be too hard to do.

As for corroboration, that is a whole other isue.

Agreed, and I wouldn't want to see a requirement for it either. In Scotland it leads to police nearly always patrolling in pairs, which would nix any chance we had of returning to the beat system.

So far as I know Canada doesn't have it either. I assume he just wanted to be sure of a good case, or it could be a departmental requirement.

I agree that anything that reduced delays and put someone in front of a Court (with the option of entering an early guilty plea and saving all the time and expense of investigating something that is not actually contested in the first place!) is a desirable outcome. The system we have, with it's absolute requirement on all the evidence being found and put before the CPS for a decision before anyone even asks the defendant if they are guilty, is stupid.

These are the delays what I'd like to see done away with. I'm sure crooks must love bureaucracy: all the more chance someone'll mess up and the case gets dropped.

And while it's true that the falsely accused have some of the case against them described, am I right in thinking it's less than they'd get if they were charged? Even if this isn't the case, it's better to know exactly where you stand. I'd far rather have the case either dropped or proceed than be left sitting around for weeks/months knowing that something might happen. Uncertainty is a bitch.

 

[detective-boy]

And while it's true that the falsely accused have some of the case against them described, am I right in thinking it's less than they'd get if they were charged?

Absolutely wrong.

The only change in the information you have when you are charged is the actual charge wording and relevant Act/Section that is read out and given to you in writing (e.g. That on 26th April 2009 at 19 High Street you stole three pairs of socks, valued at £15, the property of Marks & Spencer. Contrary to s.1 Theft Act 1968). You undoubtedly know this anyway in the vast, vast majority of cases cos nicking the socks is what you were arrested for and have been questioned about (though sometimes the exact offence charged may be news (e.g. in an assault case it may turn out to be a common assault, or an ABH or a GBH).

Once charged and put before the court, you are entitled to certain information about the case before deciding on your plea ... but if you are charged before the investigation has been completed and the evidence hasn't actually been put together there is nothing to give you and the case is just adjourned until it is finished .. so all that happens is that you wait around after charge and before trial rather than before charge. I agree that uncertainty is a bitch ... but unfortunately an investigation takes time to complete and there is simply no way of knowing what the evidence is until you have conducted an investigation - it's as simple as that.

Most (if not all) of the delays which are now in the system are the result (intended or otherwise) of changes to procedure meant to improve things for the defendant - making sure that charges are only laid in cases where the evidence merits it, rather than on the whim of the police on the flimsy grounds needed to achieve a prima facie case, that the evidence is there so the trial can proceed immediately after first appearance instead of hanging round with lots of adjournments whilst the investigation continues, that you are provided with loads of the evidence against you before having to dceide whether you are guilty or not ...

It seems you think that the current system is designed for the benefit of the police and the prosecution and that they love it ... absolutely nothing could be further from the truth!!!

 

[Azrael]

It seems you think that the current system is designed for the benefit of the police and the prosecution and that they love it ... absolutely nothing could be further from the truth!!!

Not at all. I've listened to (off duty) officers complain about the current system at length, usually its excessive bureaucracy, and always the CPS. (I like "Couldn't Prosecute Satan".)

What you described sounds close to what I was thinking: prior to a charge you get told what you're arrested on suspicion of (theft, assault, etc) and what you can pick up during questioning. Accurate summary? A defence solicitor told me that the police usually give him a summary before interview, which he called "cop-shop disclosure", although I don't know if they're obliged to do so.

The guilty man obviously knows what he's done, and can probably guess the charge after he's been nicked a few times. It sounds confusing for the innocent person, and they would benefit from being given the details of what they're supposed to have done. I assume they could be told the Act and details of the offence if evidence was still being gathered.

I support a system that's both flexible and fair, so far as is possible.

 

[detective-boy]

A defence solicitor told me that the police usually give him a summary before interview, which he called "cop-shop disclosure", although I don't know if they're obliged to do so.

It's the pre-interview disclosure I mentioned on one thread - they're not obliged to do it, but if they don't disclose sufficient for a solicitor to "properly advise their client" they can advise them to remain silent and the Court will not be allowed to draw any inferences from it ... but there would always be broad facts of what offence is suspected (it's written on the custody record) and the reasons for that suspicion (the grounds for arrest, also on the custody record).

It sounds confusing for the innocent person, and they would benefit from being given the details of what they're supposed to have done. I assume they could be told the Act and details of the offence if evidence was still being gathered.

They are told, on arrest, on booking in, at reviews, during interviews, in ordinary language they can understand. There is rarely anything (other than the precise level of assault or something like that) new in the charge heading.

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that charging is some how a revelation of all and everything - with nothing disclosed before that point and nothing new added afterwards - it isn't. At all.

 

[Azrael]

I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that charging is some how a revelation of all and everything - with nothing disclosed before that point and nothing new added afterwards - it isn't. At all.

I don't think it is. At the stage we're talking about, a functioning legal system is never going to be that comprehensive. All I think charging is is a formal allegation supported by enough evidence to make a conviction technically possible. Obviously that's not the same thing as inevitable, or even likely, so the CPS "evidence sufficiency test", or whatever it's called, comes in.

 

[agricola]

I don't think it is. At the stage we're talking about, a functioning legal system is never going to be that comprehensive. All I think charging is is a formal allegation supported by enough evidence to make a conviction technically possible. Obviously that's not the same thing as inevitable, or even likely, so the CPS "evidence sufficiency test", or whatever it's called, comes in.

Actually, as it currently stands charging goes some way beyond what you think it means. IIRC the current charging standard for most stuff now is that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction based on what the CPS has been told by the OIC.

Nor is this a bad thing, after all the Police should have sufficient evidence to justify a charge before that person ever goes to Court.

 

[Azrael]

Actually, as it currently stands charging goes some way beyond what you think it means.

The CPS test hasn't changed the legal standard, has it? I thought it was an internal rule, and courts judged according to the common law standards. The practical effect is little different, admittedly.

As to whether it's a good thing, I don't think it is. Obviously it's good if you're innocent and the charges against you are dropped, but it's not good if criminals are cut loose, which certainly happens. The common law made the police have "sufficient evidence to justify a charge": the CPS test of dropping cases that aren't likely to succeed, or aren't in the public interest, is subjective and allows winnable cases to be flushed at an early stage.

 

[detective-boy]

The CPS test hasn't changed the legal standard, has it? I thought it was an internal rule, and courts judged according to the common law standards. The practical effect is little different, admittedly.

The legal requirement for charge was not changed ... except that the job of the CPS is set out in statute - the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 - and so their instructions do, to all intents and purposes, change the standard.

In serious cases, where the defendant is not suitable for bail, the rules were fairly recently changed so that an initial decision to charge and remand could be taken even if there was loads of investigation still to do (effectively deciding to move the charge threshold back a long way towards prima facie case).

As to whether it's a good thing, I don't think it is. Obviously it's good if you're innocent and the charges against you are dropped, but it's not good if criminals are cut loose, which certainly happens. The common law made the police have "sufficient evidence to justify a charge": the CPS test of dropping cases that aren't likely to succeed, or aren't in the public interest, is subjective and allows winnable cases to be flushed at an early stage.

I'm still not 100% sure exactly what you think the problem is - the CPS make their decision when the investigation is completed, whether or not there has been a charge yet or not, so the current situation does not lead to any more "winnable cases being flushed at an early stage" than would be the case if they were charged and remanded pending further enquiries - the only thing that it does lead to is some offenders being bailed for further enquiries whereas some of them should, perhaps, have been remanded in custody (there being strict limits on pre-charge detention periods) (though the fairly recent change mentioned above has knocked the worst edges off this effect).

 

[Azrael]

I'm still not 100% sure exactly what you think the problem is [...]

Cases only proceeding to trial if the CPS decide a conviction is probable, rather than if a conviction is possible. I want guilty people pursued with all rigour compatible with fairness.

Probability might save money, and flush out weak cases, but it also looses winnable cases. Why should an accuser be denied the chance to argue their case before a jury because a bureaucrat in the CPS decides that their case isn't up to spec? And of course, if a criminal is charged and facing trial, they might decide to plead guilty.

If more guilty people were promptly charged, convicted and punished at hard labour, criminals wouldn't believe they were untouchable, and the calls for authoritarian laws that don't make us safer would die out. Liberty and order would be served.

 

[detective-boy]

I want guilty people pursued with all rigour compatible with fairness.

Your only problem then is the CPS Charging Standard. Removing PACE and lots of the other things in your sights would NOT be compatible with fairness (though there is probably scope for some more changes to parts of the rules which would increase fairness (to both suspects and victims / society) further).

 

[Azrael]

Your only problem then is the CPS Charging Standard. Removing PACE and lots of the other things in your sights would NOT be compatible with fairness (though there is probably scope for some more changes to parts of the rules which would increase fairness (to both suspects and victims / society) further).

Can't PACE's aims be achieved without the bureaucracy? If suspects had a statutory right to a lawyer in interview (with no exceptions), a full right to silence that ended interviews, and the right to be charged before a judge within 24 hours, how would they miss PACE? You could introduce basic rules about feeding and watering if the common law doesn't provide them.

Is Scotland's system unfair to suspects? Are Canada's and the USA's?

 

[agricola]

Can't PACE's aims be achieved without the bureaucracy? If suspects had a statutory right to a lawyer in interview (with no exceptions), a full right to silence that ended interviews, and the right to be charged before a judge within 24 hours, how would they miss PACE? You could introduce basic rules about feeding and watering if the common law doesn't provide them.

Is Scotland's system unfair to suspects? Are Canada's and the USA's?

So in essence you want to get rid of PACE but not the protections it provides? Why not just leave PACE as it is?

 

[Azrael]

So in essence you want to get rid of PACE but not the protections it provides? Why not just leave PACE as it is?

Because I want the safeguards without the bureaucracy.

PACE's protections are overstated. It allows the police to search homes and prisoners without a warrant, continue interviews after suspects have invoked their right to silence, draw inferences from that silence, and in some circumstances, interview them without a lawyer. (Albeit without the inferences.)

It's not a choice between PACE and the situation pre-PACE. (Or rather, pre-PACE, post-1965.) Flexible alternatives like the USA's Miranda Rights are available. If they were adopted, it would be much simpler to get suspects before a court.

 

[detective-boy]

Can't PACE's aims be achieved without the bureaucracy?

To be honest, PACE isn't really that bureaucratic - yes, there's lots of rules, but apart from the custody record (a record of everything that happens with a prisoner whilst in custody) and various requirements for authorisations to be made in writing (to protect against allegations that they weren't given, or were given in different terms) there's not lots of forms to fill in.

The major amount of new paperwork that came in at the same time as PACE is actually related to putting the story down on paper for the CPS so they can prosecute it - no matter who prosecutes (police or CPS) that will be needed (unless each officer takes their own cases to Court, something that makes no sense in terms of taking them off the street, overtime costs, etc.) anyway. It could be slimmed down substantially though.

Most "bureaucracy" that could be done away with immediately, without impacting at all on the effective investigation and prosecution process is entirely police / Home Office invented (e.g. all the performance management stuff and the hundreds of officers and staff who's ONLY role is to check and double check whether crime reports have been classified properly (not investigated, classified, so as to make sure the statistics aren't being fiddled ... )

 

[Azrael]

I've no doubt that more bureaucracy has been loaded on top of PACE, but PACE seems part of the same culture. Why all the long codes of practice? -- which I've read, and which go into mind-numbing detail. Ditto the authorizations made in writing. It's sensible to log a prisoner's property, but I believe the custody record goes far beyond that.

If our police stations weren't centres of investigation, we could surely do away with much of it.

If necessary, I'm sure a PACE-lite could be run-up.

 

[agricola]

I've no doubt that more bureaucracy has been loaded on top of PACE, but PACE seems part of the same culture. Why all the long codes of practice? -- which I've read, and which go into mind-numbing detail. Ditto the authorizations made in writing. It's sensible to log a prisoner's property, but I believe the custody record goes far beyond that.

If our police stations weren't centres of investigation, we could surely do away with much of it.

If necessary, I'm sure a PACE-lite could be run-up.

It doesnt go that far beyond that. IME the custody record is (or at least was, as my experience was before NSPIS came in) one of the more sane parts of Police bureaucracy, as there was a clear and rational purpose to every form.

The codes are, while long and tedious, actually contain everything one needs in any given situation, and are there as much for the detained person as for the Police themselves.

 

[detective-boy]

... (or at least was, as my experience was before NSPIS came in) ...

Oh dear ... I heard it was bad but haven't seen it in action. Is it as "user unfriendly" as I've been told?

One day they'll come up with some police-related IT which (a) is easier / quicker to use than the paper equivalent; (b) adds something significantly useful which wasn't there before and is worth any additional hassle and / or (c) allows for data to be electronically passed to where it needs to be (e.g. CPS ---> Court ---> Probation ---> Prison ---> back to police on release) without having to be repeatedly re-keyed.

But I'm not holding my breath ...

 

[agricola]

Oh dear ... I heard it was bad but haven't seen it in action. Is it as "user unfriendly" as I've been told?

One day they'll come up with some police-related IT which (a) is easier / quicker to use than the paper equivalent; (b) adds something significantly useful which wasn't there before and is worth any additional hassle and / or (c) allows for data to be electronically passed to where it needs to be (e.g. CPS ---> Court ---> Probation ---> Prison ---> back to police on release) without having to be repeatedly re-keyed.

But I'm not holding my breath ...

Sorry, that wasnt a criticism of NSPIS (though I have heard its not especially good) but just to say I have never used it, my experience with custody was on the old Met computer - which, though it was somewhat unique (as the old green screen CAD was and CRIS were) was quite loveable in its own eccentric way.

 

[detective-boy]

If our police stations weren't centres of investigation, we could surely do away with much of it.

If you are suggesting that we give up any attempt to interview suspects as part of an investigation, all you're going to do is massively reduce the number of successful investigations and prosecutions.

There are only three sources of evidence - physical evidence (including both things found on searches and physical trace evidence found by scene examination); witnesses (including CCTV, a sort of electronic witness (alternatively you could deem this to be physical evidence) or from the suspect (either in interview or to witnesses who then give evidence of it).

The suspects account is a hugely important part of many investigations. If they tell the truth, that short cuts things massively. If they lie, that gives opportunities to prove they are liars and undermines their defence account at Court. If they say nothing, formally putting aspects of the evidence to them allows the Court to draw inferences from their silence in certain cases.

Without their explanation / account, it is often really difficult to make sense of physical evidence or witness accounts ... which means that you run the risk of them turning up at Court with some complete, total, utter load of bollocks and, as you then have no chance to investigate it and undermine it, the jury are often left with and sometimes believe.

What do you suggest as an alternative?

 

[detective-boy]

- which, though it was somewhat unique (as the old green screen CAD was and CRIS were) was quite loveable in its own eccentric way.

It was certainly that ... I think you're right - Met IT = "eccentric"!

I'll put NSPIS back into the "not sure yet" category...

 

[Corax]

What do you suggest as an alternative?

Mob justice.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If more guilty people were promptly charged, convicted and punished at hard labour, criminals wouldn't believe they were untouchable, and the calls for authoritarian laws that don't make us safer would die out. Liberty and order would be served.

You think harsher punishment would reduce crime? Do you have any empirical evidence to back up that assertion?

Looking at the rest of the world, the countries with lower crime rates are those with higher levels of social justice, which also tend to be those with less harsh penal systems (sticking to the rich world – the rules are a bit different in the poor world so comparisons are not useful).

 

[shygirl]

It is but there were very few armed cops to be seen until a very short time ago.
They only have them now as criminals of various types carry guns.

As for the bloke in the link. It does look as if the cops fucked up large style.
Any idea why they targeted him or was it just that they got the wrong bloke?

I nearly fell off my chair just now when I saw Victor's picture - can't believe the police could be so fecking stupid, cos he's a very gentle person without an ounce of malice in his bones!!! I spent many an hour in the studio in grangetown back in the late early 80's, well, I still can't get over the fact they picked on him.

In case it hasn't already been posted, there are such things as community police consultative groups where members of the community get a chance to raise concerns with police and local authority. They vary from borough to borough and no doubt, from city to city. The one in Lambeth meets every month, others meet only a couple of times a year, guess it depends on the need to some extent. I'd be interested to know if there's one in Cardiff?