I don't really understand the caution...
Discussion
So caution goes long the lines of ".... if you do not mention when questioned, something you later rely on in court, it may harm your defence..." for every arrest or charging I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So this includes anything you may say to an arresting officer straight after being cautioned, and I guess in subsequent interviews. If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ? OR would it just affect your ability to get costs etc ?
This question is not based on an offence or arrest, but out with a chum I drink with, and his two copper friends, one a sergeant, and the other a regular officer. Neither of them could clarify the above for me, we were about 8 pints in at this point though. As an aside, regular officer was telling us he's applying for firearms training etc., he then leaves to go home. Sergeant says, as a genuine comment about his colleague "I don't really trust him with a baton on the streets, let alone a firearm". Should we all be worried ?!
So this includes anything you may say to an arresting officer straight after being cautioned, and I guess in subsequent interviews. If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ? OR would it just affect your ability to get costs etc ?
This question is not based on an offence or arrest, but out with a chum I drink with, and his two copper friends, one a sergeant, and the other a regular officer. Neither of them could clarify the above for me, we were about 8 pints in at this point though. As an aside, regular officer was telling us he's applying for firearms training etc., he then leaves to go home. Sergeant says, as a genuine comment about his colleague "I don't really trust him with a baton on the streets, let alone a firearm". Should we all be worried ?!
catfood12 said:
So caution goes long the lines of ".... if you do not mention when questioned, something you later rely on in court, it may harm your defence..." for every arrest or charging I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So this includes anything you may say to an arresting officer straight after being cautioned, and I guess in subsequent interviews. If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ? OR would it just affect your ability to get costs etc ?
It's really just forewarning you that if, when you're arrested, you come up with some lame spur-of-the-moment excuse or say nothing - then, later, you think of a better excuse then you might find that a jury find your later excuse A Bit Less Easy To Believe. So, if you've got a good story, don't be a pillock and try the old hard-man "I know my rights, mate" act, because you might find it backfiring. If you've got a genuinely good reason, come out with it quickly.So this includes anything you may say to an arresting officer straight after being cautioned, and I guess in subsequent interviews. If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ? OR would it just affect your ability to get costs etc ?
The court may make an adverse inference about anything you use in your defence which you didn't mention before the matter got to court.
e.g. they may assume that you're not telling the truth and have invented a story as a result of what has come up during the investigation and trial process itself.
e.g. they may assume that you're not telling the truth and have invented a story as a result of what has come up during the investigation and trial process itself.
catfood12 said:
So caution goes long the lines of ".... if you do not mention when questioned, something you later rely on in court, it may harm your defence..." for every arrest or charging I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So this includes anything you may say to an arresting officer straight after being cautioned, and I guess in subsequent interviews. If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ? OR would it just affect your ability to get costs etc ?
This question is not based on an offence or arrest, but out with a chum I drink with, and his two copper friends, one a sergeant, and the other a regular officer. Neither of them could clarify the above for me, we were about 8 pints in at this point though. As an aside, regular officer was telling us he's applying for firearms training etc., he then leaves to go home. Sergeant says, as a genuine comment about his colleague "I don't really trust him with a baton on the streets, let alone a firearm". Should we all be worried ?!
The threat is more or less empty. If someone refuses to say anything in whatever circumstances, his brief will come up with some excuse. I think there's a book of them . Regulars will just stay shtum, very much like they used to. First timers would probably have answered questions anyway. That said, the only thing I'd say was that I refuse to say anything until I've had full disclosure. So this includes anything you may say to an arresting officer straight after being cautioned, and I guess in subsequent interviews. If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ? OR would it just affect your ability to get costs etc ?
This question is not based on an offence or arrest, but out with a chum I drink with, and his two copper friends, one a sergeant, and the other a regular officer. Neither of them could clarify the above for me, we were about 8 pints in at this point though. As an aside, regular officer was telling us he's applying for firearms training etc., he then leaves to go home. Sergeant says, as a genuine comment about his colleague "I don't really trust him with a baton on the streets, let alone a firearm". Should we all be worried ?!
The thing is only useful for the ambush defence, where they keep something back for the trial that is so left field that the police have no answer. Although it has been more or less banned since the late 80s, there were ways around it. The caution has had some effect on this.
Mind you, I was taught by an experienced PC that if you can't prove a job without a confession from the suspect, then you can't prove the job.
Just replaces the old 'Judge's Rules' caution.
From a time well before the myriad of television programmes fact & fiction about Police procedures & the general public had little of no idea about legal procedures.
This might be worth a read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Rules
It is what it is. If you choose to make no reply or a 'No comment' interview then a court may take the view that any defence or alibi you come up with is a fabrication you've come up with after the event.
The older caution didn't contain that warning & the first mention the prosecution may have had of an alibi could have been on the court day, leaving no opportunity for it to be investigated.
ETA Selection for firearms officers is stringent. A lot of applicants are weeded out as unsuitable for one reason or another before getting on a course. I too can think of a few that I wouldn't have trusted with a baton!
From a time well before the myriad of television programmes fact & fiction about Police procedures & the general public had little of no idea about legal procedures.
This might be worth a read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges%27_Rules
It is what it is. If you choose to make no reply or a 'No comment' interview then a court may take the view that any defence or alibi you come up with is a fabrication you've come up with after the event.
The older caution didn't contain that warning & the first mention the prosecution may have had of an alibi could have been on the court day, leaving no opportunity for it to be investigated.
ETA Selection for firearms officers is stringent. A lot of applicants are weeded out as unsuitable for one reason or another before getting on a course. I too can think of a few that I wouldn't have trusted with a baton!
Edited by paintman on Sunday 15th May 21:57
over_the_hill said:
Just remember the other bit
"Anything you do say can and will be used in evidence against you"
No mention of can and will be used to clear you.
Make of that what you will.
Probably because it's not the police/CPS's job to provide evidence in your defence. That's the job of your side."Anything you do say can and will be used in evidence against you"
No mention of can and will be used to clear you.
Make of that what you will.
If the evidence means they don't think you did it, then you won't be in court in the first place.
over_the_hill said:
Just remember the other bit
"Anything you do say can and will be used in evidence against you"
No mention of can and will be used to clear you.
Make of that what you will.
Also make a note that the above doesn't even exist in any UK caution so you can ignore it completely."Anything you do say can and will be used in evidence against you"
No mention of can and will be used to clear you.
Make of that what you will.
catfood12 said:
If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ?
Certainly when a local guy, pillar of the community etc etc, got tested for drink driving a short while after arriving home, he allegedly didn't mention that he'd had a large brandy immediately on arriving home.Went to appeal with top QC and he still lost.
over_the_hill said:
Just remember the other bit
"Anything you do say can and will be used in evidence against you"
No mention of can and will be used to clear you.
Make of that what you will.
At least get it right."Anything you do say can and will be used in evidence against you"
No mention of can and will be used to clear you.
Make of that what you will.
“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
No mention of 'will be used in evidence against you.'
The job of the Police is investigators. They are to collect evidence, evidence that tends to prove or disprove an allegation. They are expressly forbidden from burying evidence that tends to disprove an allegation.
catfood12 said:
So caution goes long the lines of ".... if you do not mention when questioned, something you later rely on in court, it may harm your defence..." for every arrest or charging I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So this includes anything you may say to an arresting officer straight after being cautioned, and I guess in subsequent interviews. If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ? OR would it just affect your ability to get costs etc ?
This question is not based on an offence or arrest, but out with a chum I drink with, and his two copper friends, one a sergeant, and the other a regular officer. Neither of them could clarify the above for me, we were about 8 pints in at this point though. As an aside, regular officer was telling us he's applying for firearms training etc., he then leaves to go home. Sergeant says, as a genuine comment about his colleague "I don't really trust him with a baton on the streets, let alone a firearm". Should we all be worried ?!
If you want to know about negative inferences read sec 34 to 39 of Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994So this includes anything you may say to an arresting officer straight after being cautioned, and I guess in subsequent interviews. If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ? OR would it just affect your ability to get costs etc ?
This question is not based on an offence or arrest, but out with a chum I drink with, and his two copper friends, one a sergeant, and the other a regular officer. Neither of them could clarify the above for me, we were about 8 pints in at this point though. As an aside, regular officer was telling us he's applying for firearms training etc., he then leaves to go home. Sergeant says, as a genuine comment about his colleague "I don't really trust him with a baton on the streets, let alone a firearm". Should we all be worried ?!
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
Sheepshanks said:
catfood12 said:
If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ?
Certainly when a local guy, pillar of the community etc etc, got tested for drink driving a short while after arriving home, he allegedly didn't mention that he'd had a large brandy immediately on arriving home.Went to appeal with top QC and he still lost.
He'd probably have to lie, too, given the drink-drive form asks specific post-offence questions (QA8): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
La Liga said:
Sheepshanks said:
catfood12 said:
If you do forget something, or deliberately omit something, that you later use as defence evidence that would prove your innocence, would it suddenly not be taken into account as evidence ?
Certainly when a local guy, pillar of the community etc etc, got tested for drink driving a short while after arriving home, he allegedly didn't mention that he'd had a large brandy immediately on arriving home.Went to appeal with top QC and he still lost.
He'd probably have to lie, too, given the drink-drive form asks specific post-offence questions (QA8): https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
I was in an 8-man unit and we saw a group of skin heads attacking a group of blacks at a bus stop. The blacks were middle aged cleaners on their way to work in the wee smalls.
I nicked one, took him to the van on my own - against advice - and put him in. In the next couple of minutes another two prisoners were dumped on me with the arresting officers going back to the melee.
The three became agitated and in order to quieten them I took out my note book and told them to be quiet while I wrote their names down. They gave me their names and I asked them to spell them. You know, mentally test them to keep them quiet.
Then I told them to listen and cautioned them, asking them if they understood. One said: "That's nice, whites nicking whites, ain't it." and another said: "[Blow] me, they're only black." I got them to sign my note book and by that time other officers turned up.
When the court case came round - over a year later as they were on the run after the group they played in, The Four Skins, were involved in the burning and total destruction of a pub - I read my statement and expected to get a real going over from the defence brief, who was well known for attacking police evidence, his only MO in fact. But I gave my evidence and that was it. We went on to other things.
I nicked one, took him to the van on my own - against advice - and put him in. In the next couple of minutes another two prisoners were dumped on me with the arresting officers going back to the melee.
The three became agitated and in order to quieten them I took out my note book and told them to be quiet while I wrote their names down. They gave me their names and I asked them to spell them. You know, mentally test them to keep them quiet.
Then I told them to listen and cautioned them, asking them if they understood. One said: "That's nice, whites nicking whites, ain't it." and another said: "[Blow] me, they're only black." I got them to sign my note book and by that time other officers turned up.
When the court case came round - over a year later as they were on the run after the group they played in, The Four Skins, were involved in the burning and total destruction of a pub - I read my statement and expected to get a real going over from the defence brief, who was well known for attacking police evidence, his only MO in fact. But I gave my evidence and that was it. We went on to other things.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff