From mercalia's link:-
While rooted in English common law, felony-murder is a rare concept outside of the US.
It's based on the concept of "implied malice."
Current English law will apply here. We now know there's no "back story" in this case:-
(The senior investigating officer) said: "While there might be various forms of debate about which processes should be used in cases such as this, it was important that the resident was interviewed by officers under the appropriate legislation; not only for the integrity of our investigation but also so that his personal and legal rights were protected."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43676359Any meaningful further debate will be in a civil court if there's a claim for compo. I'm grateful to shootist for a link to a case on powers of arrest. (Although quite recent it may already be out-of-date. I've edited it to highlight the bits which seem relevant to our discussion.)
Lord Hanningfield of Chelmsford v Chief Constable of Essex Police [2013]
Was the arrest necessary?
13 ... The next question to be determined, therefore, is whether the arrest itself was indeed lawful.
That must be resolved by reference, (to) general principles governing arrest. In particular, it is necessary to have regard to s.24 of PACE governing "arrest without warrant". The power of summary arrest may only be exercised if the relevant officer ... had reasonable grounds for believing that it was "necessary" to do so: s.24(4). That must be judged, in turn, against the reasons specified in s.24(5):
"...
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
...
20 My attention was drawn to the latest guidance on the statutory power of arrest contained in Code G at Note 2F:
"An officer who believes that it is necessary to interview the person suspected of committing the offence must then consider whether their arrest is necessary in order to carry out the interview. The officer is not required to interrogate the suspect to determine whether they will attend a police station voluntarily to be interviewed but they must consider whether the suspect's voluntary attendance is a practicable alternative for carrying out the interview. If it is, then arrest would not be necessary. Conversely, an officer who considers this option but is not satisfied that it is a practicable alternative, may have reasonable grounds for deciding that the arrest is necessary at the outset 'on the street'. Without such considerations, the officer would not be able to establish that arrest was necessary in order to interview."
26 To the casual observer, these issues may seem rather technical, but it is necessary always to remember the importance of the safeguards provided by the legislature as to powers of arrest and search. The burden clearly rests on the (police) to establish that it was necessary to arrest (the suspect.) ...
...
29 ... It is not for a judge to second guess the operational decisions of experienced police officers, but in the circumstances of this case I cannot accept that there was any rational basis for rejecting alternative procedures, such as (asking him to attend a police station voluntarily.) .....
The judge went on to discuss the subsequent detention at the police station which was also unlawful. The suspect in the current case seems to have been detained longer than 24 hours, which AFAIK requires the authorisation of a superintendent
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/243.htmlWe may never know the outcome because AFAIK, the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police - not a "fence" BTW - often takes the same line as the zoo manager in
Albert and the Lion but with a confidentiality clause.
How much to settle the matter?
2/3 of cases are not dealt with properly they says - 64% are never solved and in some areas 9 out of 10 are written off without any action. Last year 127,617 burglary investigations were closed without any suspect being identified, leaving the victim with no hope of justice.
