I don't really understand the caution...
Discussion
XCP said:
mph1977 said:
Never been in the UK caution , it's not even in the Miranda caution in the US...
It's been a while but I couldn't remember that bit. It may go with the 'right to one phone call' nonsense that people used to come out with.Derek Smith said:
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
Headline news back in July 1981. The riot (skinheads v Asians) at the Hamborough Tavern in Southallhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnMP1OQhAP0
The 'secret location in Kent' mentioned in the video was in fact at this pub in Mottingham, London SE9.
The gig took place only a month after the mayhem in Southall.
The group was known for their song ACAB. No doubt most folk can work out what that stood for.
marshalla said:
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.
No they may not. Nothing may interfere with your right to a fair & unbiased trial based on the evidence presented to the court.Or so my judge friend told me.
Rovinghawk said:
No they may not. Nothing may interfere with your right to a fair & unbiased trial based on the evidence presented to the court.
Or so my judge friend told me.
Your judge friends needs to go and read the Criminal Procedures Rules and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio... again.Or so my judge friend told me.
The court may draw any inference it deems proper. That inference does not have to be that the defendant is telling the truth in court about something they refused to answer during earlier questioning.
N.B. may, not will. It's a possibility, not a certainty.
Rovinghawk said:
marshalla said:
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.
No they may not. Nothing may interfere with your right to a fair & unbiased trial based on the evidence presented to the court.Or so my judge friend told me.
Red Devil said:
Derek Smith said:
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
Headline news back in July 1981. The riot (skinheads v Asians) at the Hamborough Tavern in Southallhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnMP1OQhAP0
The 'secret location in Kent' mentioned in the video was in fact at this pub in Mottingham, London SE9.
The gig took place only a month after the mayhem in Southall.
The group was known for their song ACAB. No doubt most folk can work out what that stood for.
I met a bobby from a unit that was called to the scene of the pre riot punch ups. He said that by the time they answered the call for assistance the fuss was over. They got out of their vans and were kicking a football around for a couple of hours. Their sergeant called them back to the van casually and they drove towards the pub and then all hell was let loose. He said he was fighting with both 'sides' at times but never got anywhere near the pub.
He was quite upset about the criticisms of lack of response. A number of his unit were injured and some hospitalised.
TheBear said:
FiF said:
Ancillary question to that of the OP.
Op given caution. Asked if he understands it. Op says no he doesn't.
What happens next?
Explain it in simple terms.Op given caution. Asked if he understands it. Op says no he doesn't.
What happens next?
How anyones supposed to understand the caution at the speed its given during arrest on Cop programmes is beyond me. There seems to be a competition for who can give the caution in one breath and at max speed
I got stopped for speeding a few years back and was cautioned as soon as I sat in the car and before I knew (for sure at least) what I the tug was even about.
Certainly put the fear of God into me at the time as I had assumed (wrongly I guess) that it was only given for serious offences.
Is that typical?
Certainly put the fear of God into me at the time as I had assumed (wrongly I guess) that it was only given for serious offences.
Is that typical?
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 ?!
you are best to say nothing until you have representation, and even then only if advised to answer. "Anything you say may be later used in court" = anything that helps their case.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 ?!
Police will stitch you up.
One point which should be emphasised: the lack of caution does not necessarily mean a statement made by the suspect either before or after arrest will be excluded from evidence. Much will depend on the purpose of the inclusion, but it is down to the judge, at lest for the trial.
Everything that is said after caution will not, necessarily, mean that it can be included.
The court, or rather the judge, is the arbiter of such things. It is the same with hearsay evidence. In certain circumstances a judge will allow its inclusion.
All the caution does is to warn the defendant, in effect, to be careful of what they say.
Everything that is said after caution will not, necessarily, mean that it can be included.
The court, or rather the judge, is the arbiter of such things. It is the same with hearsay evidence. In certain circumstances a judge will allow its inclusion.
All the caution does is to warn the defendant, in effect, to be careful of what they say.
Durzel said:
I got stopped for speeding a few years back and was cautioned as soon as I sat in the car and before I knew (for sure at least) what I the tug was even about.
Certainly put the fear of God into me at the time as I had assumed (wrongly I guess) that it was only given for serious offences.
Is that typical?
Yes. An officer must caution at the first practical moment if they suspect you of committing any offence and wish to question you about it.Certainly put the fear of God into me at the time as I had assumed (wrongly I guess) that it was only given for serious offences.
Is that typical?
There are different variations of the caution depending on which stage in the investigation it is given or whether they intend to arrest or not or whether legal advice has been delayed. But you must be cautioned before any questioning happens.
This was a genuine question, based on inquisitiveness, nothing else. I've not been nicked for anything, nor has any 'mate'! I was trying to reconcile it as an innocent person would, if they didn't mention something straight away, would it then get ignored if it could prove their innocence.
DS and others quickly clarified that the caution is intended to (paraphrasing here) basically stop scallies from inventing a story whilst they're stewing in the cells.
DS and others quickly clarified that the caution is intended to (paraphrasing here) basically stop scallies from inventing a story whilst they're stewing in the cells.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff