LEGAL CONTEXT. 3.1 Reference to any laws, orders, regulations or other similar instrument shall be construed as a reference to such Laws or subordinate legislation, orders, regulations or instrument as amended, supplemented or replaced by any subsequent Law, order, regulation or instruments or subordinate legislation or as contained in a subsequent re-enactment thereof.
3.2 The masculine shall include the feminine and the neuter and the singular the plural and vice versa as the context shall admit or require.
3.3 References to persons will be construed so as to include bodies corporate, Partnerships, unincorporated associations, trusts, statutory, local government, quasi-public and non- governmental bodies.
3.4 References to clauses and Schedules are to clauses of and Schedules to this Agreement.
3.5 References to the parties are to the parties to this Agreement.
3.6 The Schedules and the appendices to any Schedule form part of this Agreement and will have the same force and effect as if expressly set out in the body of the Agreement.
3.7 The background information section of this Agreement and the headings to the clauses of and Schedules to this Agreement are for ease of reference only and shall not affect the construction of this Agreement.
3.8 Any phrase in this Agreement introduced by the term “include”, “includes”, “including”, “included”, “in particular” and “for example” will be construed without limitation unless inconsistent with the context.
LEGAL CONTEXT. 2.1 Section 22A and Section 23 Police Act 1996 (as amended) enable chief officers of two or more police forces to make a collaboration agreement about the discharge of functions by officers and staff of any of their forces in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness. Function comprises all and any of the powers and duties of police forces.
2.2 A chief officer may enter into a collaboration agreement only with the approval of the Local Policing Body responsible for maintaining the chief officer’s force.
2.3 Section 22A and Section 23A of the Police Xxx 0000 enables two or more Local Policing Bodies to make a collaboration agreement about the provision of support for any of those Local Policing Bodies and/or for any of the police forces which they maintain support including the provision of premises, equipment, staff, services and facilities.
2.4 A Local Policing Body may enter into a collaboration agreement only if it considers that the agreement is in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of one or more Local Policing Bodies or police forces and only after consulting with the chief officer of the police force maintained by the Local Policing Body.
2.5 Where a collaboration agreement includes a provision about the discharge of functions by employees who are under the direction and control of a chief officer, the collaboration agreement may only be made with the approval of that chief officer.
2.6 This Agreement is a Collaboration Agreement and the terms of the Agreements are to be read in conjunction with legislation and the statutory guidance for police collaboration.
2.7 The General Agreement is structured to identify the purpose of the collaborative service, to agree to joint working and to identify common provisions.
2.8 In construing the Agreement, where there may be any conflict between the meaning of any term as may appear both in the General Agreement and the Schedules, the terms applicable are those contained in the General Agreement and any appendices and protocols referred to within them.
LEGAL CONTEXT. A copy of the entire registered easement agreement is included as an appendix at the back of the BDR.
LEGAL CONTEXT. This regional project is directly executed by the UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok and located in Bangkok, Thailand. As Thailand, as host country, has not signed the SBAA, the following text applies: The project document shall be the instrument envisaged in the Supplemental Provisions to the Project Document, attached hereto. Consistent with the above Supplemental Provisions, the responsibility for the safety and security of the executing agency and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the executing agency’s custody, rests with the executing agency. The executing agency shall:
a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried;
b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the executing agency’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement. The executing agency agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via xxxx://xxx.xx.xxx/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document. Project activities will be undertaken in those countries which have endorsed the project. For those countries which have signed the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA), the following text applies: This project document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the SBAA between the Government of (country) and UNDP, signed on (date). Consistent with the Article III of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, the responsibility for the safety and security of the executing agency and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the executing agency’s custody, rests with the implementing partner. The executing agency shall:
LEGAL CONTEXT. 1.1. The Commissioners wish to enter into a Collaboration Agreement pursuant to the duties under Xxxxxxx 00X Xxxxxx Xxx 0000 (“the 1996 Act”) for the provision of services under Schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Xxx 0000 (“the 2011 Act”).
1.2. This Agreement is made pursuant to:-
1.2.1. The individual obligations of the Commissioners to appoint an individual under paragraph (7)(1) of Schedule 1 to the 0000 Xxx.
1.2.2. The proposed notification to the Durham Police and Crime Panel of an Acting senior appointment to the Commissioner for Durham, specifically that of Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx (“the Secondee”).
1.3. This Agreement provides for a Policing Body collaboration pursuant to s.22(A)(c) of the 1996 Act by way of secondment of the Secondee in whole or in part (referred to in this agreement as “the Secondment”).
1.4. The Policing Bodies are of the view that this Agreement is in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness of the Policing Bodies and have consulted with the relevant Chief Constables.
LEGAL CONTEXT. The Data Protection Act 1998
LEGAL CONTEXT. Problems between Serbia and Kosovo were evident even during the Yugoslav period, when the federal ties between Serbia and its then autonomous province Kosovo*40 were in trouble. During the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the Kosovo issue was not solved, leading to another war (1998-1999) which ended by adoption of the United Nations Security Council (UN SC) Resolution 124441 and installation of the international administration – United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Resolution 1244 provided that Kosovo would have autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and affirmed the territorial integrity of FR Yugoslavia, which has been legally succeeded by the Republic of Serbia. The UNMIK mission, afterwards joined by XXXXX,42 essentially meant the complete suspension of the Serbian legal order, and particularly the withdrawal of military and police forces from Kosovo. According to the 1244 UN SC Resolution, one of the “main responsibilities of the international civil presence” in Kosovo is to “facilitate the political process designed to establish the future status of Kosovo”.43 After the failure of the status negotiations in 2006-2007, Kosovo declared independence on 17 February 2008, which has since been recognized by more than 100 states. In spite of this, Serbia stated it would never recognize Kosovo’s independence, claiming it to be its southern autonomous province.44 Furthermore, the International Court of Justice issued an Opinion45 in 2010 stating that Kosovo’s declaration of independence is not against public international law. As the ICJ concluded, “Resolution 1244 (1999) thus does not preclude the issuance of the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 because the two instruments operate on a different level: unlike resolution 1244 (1999), the declaration of independence is an attempt 40 Hereinafter: *This designation is without prejudice to position on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration on independence. 41 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 on the situation relating Kosovo, S/ RES/1244 [1999] of 10 June 1999. 42 European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, which was established in 2011 43 UN SC Resolution 1244, supra note 40, paragraph 11. 44 Serbian high official claimed that the ICJ avoided answering the substantive question “wheth- er the Kosovo Albanians were entitled to secession from Serbia”, but just pronouncing on the le- gality of an act. See more at xxxx://xx...
LEGAL CONTEXT. The TRIPs Agreement
LEGAL CONTEXT. The Commissioners wish to enter into a Collaboration Agreement pursuant to the duties under Section 22A Police Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) for the provision of services under Schedule 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”). This Agreement is made pursuant to:- The individual obligations of the Commissioners to appoint an individual under paragraph (7)(1) of Schedule 1 to the 2011 Act. The proposed notification to the Durham Police and Crime Panel of an Acting senior appointment to the Commissioner for Durham, specifically that of Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx (“the Secondee”). This Agreement provides for a Policing Body collaboration pursuant to s.22(A)(c) of the 1996 Act by way of secondment of the Secondee in whole or in part (referred to in this agreement as “the Secondment”). The Policing Bodies are of the view that this Agreement is in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness of the Policing Bodies and have consulted with the relevant Chief Constables.
LEGAL CONTEXT. 4.1 Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 places a duty on agencies, including the Local Authority and the Police to make arrangements to ensure their functions are discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This is further supported by the guidance included in Working Together to Safeguard Children (2013).
(i) Police Bail and PACE
4.2 When Kent Police decide they have sufficient evidence to charge a child or young person (aged 10-17) with an offence, they have a number of options available to them. Their decision would generally be undertaken in consultation with the relevant Youth Offending Service (YOS), either Kent or Medway, if appropriate to the case.
4.3 There is a general presumption under the Bail Act 1976 that Bail will be granted without conditions.
4.4 There are exceptions to this presumption for children & young people. Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) requires that, where the Police charge a child or young person (aged 10 to17) with an offence, the Custody Officer must decide whether to grant or xxxx Xxxx, with or without conditions.
4.5 PACE specifies that a person may be refused bail and continue to be detained following charge if the custody officer believes the child or young person would: Fail to appear in Court Commit further offences Or it is necessary: for their own protection to prevent harm to others to prevent interference with justice/investigation, or there is doubt about their identity/name & address and additionally for a child / young person (aged 10 to 17) : if the Custody Officer believes the child or young person ought to be detained in their own interests
4.6 S.38 PACE (1984) states the requirements that a custody officer must consider before deciding to detain a person after he/she has been charged.
4.7 “Where a Custody Officer authorises an arrested child or young person to be kept in police detention under S38[6]
(1) the Custody Officer shall ensure that the arrested child or young person is transferred to local authority accommodation unless the Custody Officer certifies that: -
(A) By reason of circumstances specified in the certificate (PACE Certificate of Youth Detention – PCE-YD), it is impracticable for them to do so. It is acknowledged that whilst thick fog/heavy snow/ no available beds within a reasonable distance may meet the impractability test, a suspicion that the child might abscond from a placement would not be sufficient. The Local Auth...
