Police officers instructed not to confer writing up notes
Discussion
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26446913
It has been a long time coming but a step in the right direction. However, "Guidance will be issued to forces once it has been approved by the home secretary."
Guidance? What will happen when the guidance is ignored? What sanctions will be applied when police officers continue to collude when writing their notes or statements?
It has been a long time coming but a step in the right direction. However, "Guidance will be issued to forces once it has been approved by the home secretary."
Guidance? What will happen when the guidance is ignored? What sanctions will be applied when police officers continue to collude when writing their notes or statements?
davidball said:
Guidance? What will happen when the guidance is ignored? What sanctions will be applied when police officers continue to collude when writing their notes or statements?
Why don't you actually read the draft guidance since you're starting topic about it? S.21 will become very relevant, I expect.
Hmmm...
Isn't that now an open invitation for the defence to pick holes in differences in statements, that although are factually correct could cause doubt on the sequence of events?
Officer A will have a different line of sight of Officer B, C or D etc.... They may see 'different' things as they were slightly further away or at a different angle.... Yet that could be cause to cast doubt on what happened.
Bad move in my opinion
Isn't that now an open invitation for the defence to pick holes in differences in statements, that although are factually correct could cause doubt on the sequence of events?
Officer A will have a different line of sight of Officer B, C or D etc.... They may see 'different' things as they were slightly further away or at a different angle.... Yet that could be cause to cast doubt on what happened.
Bad move in my opinion
Tomo1971 said:
Hmmm...
Isn't that now an open invitation for the defence to pick holes in differences in statements, that although are factually correct could cause doubt on the sequence of events?
I think that is exactly the point surely?Isn't that now an open invitation for the defence to pick holes in differences in statements, that although are factually correct could cause doubt on the sequence of events?
If police need to collude to get their facts straight then the facts are somewhat dubious.
Each officer should only be a witness to his own perspective of the situation
Snowboy said:
It's a good thing.
I hope and expect any Defence sillyness with different cops perspectives to be prevented within the same set of laws.
Presumably that is simply a matter for the prosecutor to make clear to the jury.I hope and expect any Defence sillyness with different cops perspectives to be prevented within the same set of laws.
Even if the facts become slightly different it will be obvious to the jury under the circumstances whether it is a case of different perspectives or unclear evidence
Snowboy said:
It's a good thing.
I hope and expect any Defence sillyness with different cops perspectives to be prevented within the same set of laws.
Told to me by one of the blokes involved.I hope and expect any Defence sillyness with different cops perspectives to be prevented within the same set of laws.
The Met police came up with an idea that many thought would revolutionise the service. They wanted a trial period and had it come off they would have been rolled out to all forces.
Patrolling officers were to have a video/audio recorder on them at all times. The benefits, which were many, would include reassurance of the public at large, close supervision of individual officers, to provide evidence of or defence to allegations of improper conducts.
The idea was put to local defence solicitors with the request that they would not ask for a transcription of the audio tapes as a matter of course as this would cost a considerable amount of money and resources. The briefs refused. So the experiment never started.
There was consideration of video only. Don't know what happened to that.
Derek Smith said:
Snowboy said:
It's a good thing.
I hope and expect any Defence sillyness with different cops perspectives to be prevented within the same set of laws.
Told to me by one of the blokes involved.I hope and expect any Defence sillyness with different cops perspectives to be prevented within the same set of laws.
The Met police came up with an idea that many thought would revolutionise the service. They wanted a trial period and had it come off they would have been rolled out to all forces.
Patrolling officers were to have a video/audio recorder on them at all times. The benefits, which were many, would include reassurance of the public at large, close supervision of individual officers, to provide evidence of or defence to allegations of improper conducts.
The idea was put to local defence solicitors with the request that they would not ask for a transcription of the audio tapes as a matter of course as this would cost a considerable amount of money and resources. The briefs refused. So the experiment never started.
There was consideration of video only. Don't know what happened to that.
Tomo1971 said:
Officer A will have a different line of sight of Officer B, C or D etc.... They may see 'different' things as they were slightly further away or at a different angle.... Yet that could be cause to cast doubt on what happened.
This is standard with witness testimony. It's very flawed. Lots of experiments prove this to the case. This guidance is wholly appropriate for cases of serious injury and death.
S.21 said:
All key policing witnesses will be expected to assist in the investigation into the death or serious injury by providing a full and detailed account at the earliest opportunity. Nothing in this guidance affects their right to be provided with support by other people not involved in the incident, including the right to obtain legal advice and the right to refuse to provide any statement. However, a decision not to provide an account when asked to do so will be noted and will be taken into account in the investigation and in any subsequent proceedings.
I expect the result will be officers won't provide a statement without obtaining legal advice, since their primary concern will be minimising prosecution risk. The ACPO post-shooting guidance, IIRC, acknowledges that 'best evidence' is often gathered a day after the incident. I wonder how this fits with the IPPC saying "the earliest opportunity" and "a decision not to provide an account when asked to do so will be noted and will be taken into account in the investigation and in any subsequent proceedings." S.24 said:
It is accepted that no one can be compelled to give an account and that consideration must be given to the welfare of those who have been directly involved in a serious incident. However, the public rightly expects that those who witness a death or serious injury, or incidents relating to it, whilst acting in a professional capacity, should co-operate fully with an investigation, offering up all relevant information in a prompt and open manner. Failure to do so damages not only the effectiveness of the investigation but also the public’s confidence in the police service.
The public need to also "rightly" expect that the IPCC aren't there to just establish facts and investigate, but they are there to gather evidence with a view to establish if there's a criminal case to answer for the officers involved. As this is the case, the IPCC and public have no more right to expect full co-operation of police officers the IPCC are treating suspects, as the police do of the public they treat as suspects.I've seen this tone with the IPCC several times of late, including Mark Duggan where they were inappropriately critical of the officers for only providing written statements after legal advice.
I've said this before, the IPCC need to realise that suspects aren't there to make the life of an investigator easy.
Rovinghawk said:
Witnesses aren't allowed to collude for fear of contaminating their testimony
You seriously believe that they might not talk to each other before the police arrive??I was going to ask if you actually know what 'collude' means but then I had another look to see who made the post & decided not to waste my time.
Rovinghawk said:
Witnesses aren't allowed to collude for fear of contaminating their testimony- why shouldn't others be subject to the same principle?
Mork calling Orson ... come in Orson ... Mork calling Orson ...You really do have a child's perspective on these issues ...
Perhaps that is being unkind to children ...
rohrl said:
I read about a police force in the US that fitted cameras to all their patrolling officers. Incidents of police brutality dropped by something like 60%. Whether this was a real drop or not is very hard to establish of course but it's got to be a Good Thing.
There is much argument about whether it modifies the behaviour of the officers of that of the public th most.Like most of my stories, I've mentioned this one before, but it bares repeating.
I was in charge of the CCTV at Brighton when there was a demonstration.
There was a group of demonstrators, about half a dozen, and they were attacking four police officer, using sticks, possibly broken chairs, and throwing things at them. All caught on CCTV. The PCs backed off and off and then, when they passed a side turning two other police officers jumped out and arrested the main offender, the one organising it all and shouting most.
A police van was en route but things got a bit nasty with the remaining demonstrators, joined by three or four others, trying to get the prisoner released.
Side handled batons were deployed and the offenders were kept at a distance. It was text-book stuff. The van arrived and, probably in fear of the hundred of officers who were going to get out, they ran away. The prisoner was put in the van, together with the two arresting officers - there being plenty of room as only the driver was in the van - and the PCs holstered their batons and then joined a group of colleagues who were also under attack.
I got a call to the front office to say that three people had come in to make a complaint and were causing problems in the front office. I was the inspector so had no particular job to do and wandered down to help the stretched civvies and to tell the complainants to return another day.
They were put in a side office and I listened to their story. Ironically, it was evident that they had colluded. They told me they were walking along the road when a group of a dozen officers came out of a side street, beat them and then took one of their number away when all he was doing was defending themselves. They quoted a couple of divisional numbers.
I took their names and addresses and then told them that there was no problem as that street was on CCTV and we'd got the whole incident recorded.
It was one of those magic moments, a memory to cherish.
I told them that I would not be able to take their complaints as I was involved in a demonstration where thugs were attacking police officers but that I felt certain that the police would, now we had their names and addresses, be round to discuss matters with them.
There is an argument that the officers, knowing that they were on CCTV - they'd been told reinforcements were en route and a vehicle coming should they require evacuation - behaved in a manner that they would not normally do. Perhaps that would have not followed directions and used their batons to inflict injury and considerable pain. That, of course, is guesswork. Your opinion on that one would depend on whether you were prejudiced against the police.
Where there is no doubt is that there would have been a complaint against the police for assault, a criminal charge possible, and, given the briefs who frequented Brighton, they would probably have sued the police and would probably have been paid out. Another case for the anti brigade to quote.
There were a number of incidents like that.
There was also one where a police officer over-reacted. He was pushed against a van, knocking his head and then threw a punch at the bloke, knocking him to the ground. He then grabbed the bloke around the neck of his shirt and threatened him. Regardless of the push - and let's face it, we all know how dangerous a push can be don't we - the chap was out of order.
Where there is no doubt is that the patrolling PCs loved CCTV and would radio to the control room to go on camera when they were dealing with an incident or a stop. One wonders how many suspects would have asked for the same.
There was a significant drop in complaints about violent officers in the CCTV area. Yet it doesn't take a lot of working out for a shrewd PC to go out of CCTV range.
La Liga said:
I expect the result will be officers won't provide a statement without obtaining legal advice, since their primary concern will be minimising prosecution risk. The ACPO post-shooting guidance, IIRC, acknowledges that 'best evidence' is often gathered a day after the incident. I wonder how this fits with the IPPC saying "the earliest opportunity" and "a decision not to provide an account when asked to do so will be noted and will be taken into account in the investigation and in any subsequent proceedings."
That's an empty threat. It doesn't take a lot of working out to come up with a reason as to why an officer has refused to answer questions or make anything other than a duty statement until he/she thinks it appropriate.When most briefs will tell a suspect not to answer any questions until after disclosure, one wonders why it doesn't go for police officers as well.
NH1 said:
What was the guidance before then, even if they collude then they should still tell the truth even if they have differing accounts of what happened. Giving new guidance on what to do suggests something else used to happen but they were ok about it before.
why don't you ring B&Q?XCP said:
I wonder on the practicality.
2 officers crew a car together and witness an incident - any incident you like - together.
Is it realistic to expect them to somehow separate and write their notes in isolation after every incident, and then reunite to drive to the next job?
you can write your notes seperately on different sides of an office / crew room , given the level of collusion previously practiced including comparision od drafts to 'get the story straight' and the use of mass completed boilerplate notes / statements in past practice with regard to large events it's obvious what the actual aim of the changes are ... 2 officers crew a car together and witness an incident - any incident you like - together.
Is it realistic to expect them to somehow separate and write their notes in isolation after every incident, and then reunite to drive to the next job?
3:15 is a time that should be burnt into the minds of every officer ...
paintman said:
You seriously believe that they might not talk to each other before the police arrive??
I was going to ask if you actually know what 'collude' means but then I had another look to see who made the post & decided not to waste my time.
The police are allowed to compare their notes/witness statements but do everything they can to ensure the public cannot. Yes I know what collude means and I meant it in its literal sense. It has happened in the past and probably still happens. Well the whole topic just moved up a few notches. I suggest you read http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26474009 and see how the chickens are coming home to roost. Or is that a waste of your time?I was going to ask if you actually know what 'collude' means but then I had another look to see who made the post & decided not to waste my time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff