Does anyone know what it means if someone is arrested, and then later on they are told they are now 'de-arrested'?

I would assume the reverse of arrested, as in "un-arrested" ?

De-arresting doesn't mean the arrest never took place It simply means that the reason for the arrest has been ascertained to have passed.

Eh?    Can you give an example?

My son's friend broke a shop window (my son was there), and was arrested by the police.  As his hand was all cut and bleeding the police called an ambulance, and as he left in that, he was then told he was de-arrested. 

Think it means that no record will be kept of your sons involvment but to be sure ask the police or CAB

Just checked with OH who says in his experience it would mean no further action to be taken - usually because there isn't enough evidence .  It would seem though that there was evidence in this case with the hand being  hurt which seems strange but it depends really on whether anything else was said etc...

According to section 30, subsection (7) and (7A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to "de-arrest" is to allow that "a person who has been arrested under any act of law at a place other than a police station, shall be released before reaching a police station if a constable is satisfied that there are no grounds for keeping him under arrest". Unlike being released with no further action, being de-arrested means that the record of the initial arrest is removed.

I remember it in the George Michael falling asleep at the wheel case.

Would we be correct to conclude, then, that "the reason for the arrest has been ascertained to have passed"  is policeman speak for "they made a boo boo"

Yes OR if they decide they have something "better" to arrest you for as in the George Michael case, I am sure he was de arrested to do with sleeping at the wheel then re arrested for possession of a particular drugs.

Isabel:police can arrest for "suspsion of". This means they could arrest you and put you in the back of the car and investigate. If after the initial investigation they feel sure you played no part then they can de arrest you because what they suspected wasnt true.

Ok, thanks, I was a bit worried about my son's involvement in being there, and he had his mobile phone stolen from him - by a lad he knows, apparently a real troublemaker, so now have the police coming round later for him to do a statement.

> Isabel:police can arrest for "suspsion of". This means they could arrest you and put you in the back of the car and investigate. If after the initial investigation they feel sure you played no part then they can de arrest you because what they suspected wasnt true.

Yes, I'm getting that from the incidents described, and I can understand that as meaning on further enquiring it does not look they the arrested person has actually committed any crime, but what I can't quite see is how it relates to this thing that the reason "has passed".  If fact I can't understand what that means, all my poor brain can make of that is, it was illegal at one point but isn't now?????

OK, for example: The police are called to a shop that has had its window broken by youths and get to shop to find a male with a bloodied hand stood next to a broken window. Police would assume he has put his hand through window. Arrest him on suspicion of criminal damge. Put him in the car. Shop owner comes out and says another boy broke the window, the lad arrested was an innocent bystander who tryed to help pick up the glass.  The police would have arrested him becuase straight away the signs are pointing to the fact he did it & they couldnt take the risk on letting him go without checking it out first.
Not a great example but hope that helps.

Not really, they might have decided they had the wrong chap but the window is still broken so how had the offence "passed" I'm just having trouble getting my head around that term but I'm probably just looking at it from a funny angle.

Its not the offence that is being arrested, it is the person.
The offence still exists but the person who they suspected had committed it hadn't so the person was de-arrested

Yes, the person is de-arrested.  I got that   But what about this idea that "the reason for the arrest has been ascertained to have passed.   That is pertaining to the reason not the person.  I can't quite envisage an example of that.

In the case i used as an example it could have turned out that the window was broken by the shopkeeper as an accident.
In which case it wasnt a crime and was jut coincidence that the male was by the broken wiondow with a bloodied hand.

Yes, I can see that could fit the bill

think of it in terms of persons are stopped by police near to the scene of an offence - broken window/burglary/assault...the person or persons may be arrested at the scene, but during the course of initial enqs, ie witnesses - it turns out the person (s) stopped have no involvement - then they will be de-arrested and enqs will continue in to the offence

happens sometimes on weekends where someone may be arrested for an assault, but then someone else says it was someone else, the person initially arrested will sometimes be taken home and de-arrested etc

Yes, yes, yes, I get all those circumstances   it was the applying the term "the reason had passed" that I couldn't get my brain around but Freds Mum has now come up with the scenario of the window turning out to have been broken by accident which made sense.  I suppose we could apply something similar to your scenario if it turns out the assaulted one had actually tripped over his shoelace and blooded his own nose

Wey hey Glad you got it now Isabel...just dont go getting youself arrested cos you understand the process of de-arrest