RTA, should police caution?
Discussion
RSstuff said:
edthefed said:
If it is a witness statement no.
If it is an interview ie questions asked and answers provided then normally yes
How about if it is a Road Collision Report ? And is that admissible in court?If it is an interview ie questions asked and answers provided then normally yes
Edited by RSstuff on Monday 2nd June 16:44
RSstuff said:
Where a personal injury has occurred, are the attending Police required to issue a caution, before taking a statement from the drivers involved?
I will caution, inform not under arrest and offer legal advise to those I suspect have committed an offence. If its obvious who is at fault I wont caution the others.
LosingGrip said:
RSstuff said:
Where a personal injury has occurred, are the attending Police required to issue a caution, before taking a statement from the drivers involved?
I will caution, inform not under arrest and offer legal advise to those I suspect have committed an offence. If its obvious who is at fault I wont caution the others.
RSstuff said:
So if no cautions were issued, could the Road Collision Report be deemed inadmissible or challenged in court?
What court are we talking about? Criminal...I'll be honest no idea. Properly a get out as thats the whole point of the caution.
Civil...properly still able to be used.
Someone (AGTLaw I'm sure) if they see will be able to advise better. Not something ive looked into massively as its second nature for me to caution etc.
RSstuff said:
So if no cautions were issued, could the Road Collision Report be deemed inadmissible or challenged in court?
In reference to Magistrates or Crown court.It s a disclosable document in court as it s a document created in the course of the investigation.
If you have said something which was recorded on the report which wasn t under caution then it wouldn t carry the same weight if used in evidence.
It wouldn t be deemed inadmissible.
I don’t know if the same rules apply to civil court as no experience in that area.
Edited by Jamescrs on Tuesday 3rd June 04:57
LosingGrip said:
RSstuff said:
So if no cautions were issued, could the Road Collision Report be deemed inadmissible or challenged in court?
What court are we talking about? Criminal...I'll be honest no idea. Properly a get out as thats the whole point of the caution.
Civil...properly still able to be used.
Someone (AGTLaw I'm sure) if they see will be able to advise better. Not something ive looked into massively as its second nature for me to caution etc.
If there was nothing apparent to indicate that a driver had committed an offence, but when spoken to they declared that they’ve been awake for 48 hours and were driving at twice the speed limit so that the adrenaline kept them going, that would still be admissible.
At that point, the officer *would* be thinking that offences have been committed and should caution before continuing the conversation.
Alex Z said:
The absence of a caution doesn t invalidate anything that was said to a police officer.
If there was nothing apparent to indicate that a driver had committed an offence, but when spoken to they declared that they ve been awake for 48 hours and were driving at twice the speed limit so that the adrenaline kept them going, that would still be admissible.
Is there actually a requirement for a caution in any situation then?If there was nothing apparent to indicate that a driver had committed an offence, but when spoken to they declared that they ve been awake for 48 hours and were driving at twice the speed limit so that the adrenaline kept them going, that would still be admissible.
A caution is only required when someone is suspected of committing an offence and is to be interviewed.
EG
Two car accident.
Minor injuries
2 adults in each vehicle
Officer arrives and starts ascertaining what happened, names,addresses,injuries, who was driving, etc.
At that point nobody suspected of any offence.
Driver 1 then says driver 2 changed lanes suddenly and without warning colliding with car 1.
At that point driver 2 is suspected of an offence and should be cautioned
The "accident report" is a just that a basic report of who is involved, what happened, injuries, damage etc. Initial explanations / first accounts from drivers (under caution if required).
Those suspected of an offence might then be interviewed again later when statements have been taken from witnesses / other enquiries made.
EG
Two car accident.
Minor injuries
2 adults in each vehicle
Officer arrives and starts ascertaining what happened, names,addresses,injuries, who was driving, etc.
At that point nobody suspected of any offence.
Driver 1 then says driver 2 changed lanes suddenly and without warning colliding with car 1.
At that point driver 2 is suspected of an offence and should be cautioned
The "accident report" is a just that a basic report of who is involved, what happened, injuries, damage etc. Initial explanations / first accounts from drivers (under caution if required).
Those suspected of an offence might then be interviewed again later when statements have been taken from witnesses / other enquiries made.
Edited by edthefed on Tuesday 3rd June 14:58
edthefed said:
A caution is only required when someone is suspected of committing an offence and is to be interviewed.
EG
Two car accident.
Minor injuries
2 adults in each vehicle
Officer arrives and starts ascertaining what happened, names,addresses,injuries, who was driving, etc.
At that point nobody suspected of any offence.
Driver 1 then says driver 2 changed lanes suddenly and without warning colliding with car 1.
At that point driver 2 is suspected of an offence and should be cautioned
The "accident report" is a just that a basic report of who is involved, what happened, injuries, damage etc. Initial explanations / first accounts from drivers (under caution if required).
Those suspected of an offence might then be interviewed again later when statements have been taken from witnesses / other enquiries made.
This. EG
Two car accident.
Minor injuries
2 adults in each vehicle
Officer arrives and starts ascertaining what happened, names,addresses,injuries, who was driving, etc.
At that point nobody suspected of any offence.
Driver 1 then says driver 2 changed lanes suddenly and without warning colliding with car 1.
At that point driver 2 is suspected of an offence and should be cautioned
The "accident report" is a just that a basic report of who is involved, what happened, injuries, damage etc. Initial explanations / first accounts from drivers (under caution if required).
Those suspected of an offence might then be interviewed again later when statements have been taken from witnesses / other enquiries made.
Edited by edthefed on Tuesday 3rd June 14:58
RSstuff said:
Alex Z said:
The absence of a caution doesn t invalidate anything that was said to a police officer.
If there was nothing apparent to indicate that a driver had committed an offence, but when spoken to they declared that they ve been awake for 48 hours and were driving at twice the speed limit so that the adrenaline kept them going, that would still be admissible.
Is there actually a requirement for a caution in any situation then?If there was nothing apparent to indicate that a driver had committed an offence, but when spoken to they declared that they ve been awake for 48 hours and were driving at twice the speed limit so that the adrenaline kept them going, that would still be admissible.
Jamescrs said:
In reference to Magistrates or Crown court.
It s a disclosable document in court as it s a document created in the course of the investigation.
If you have said something which was recorded on the report which wasn t under caution then it wouldn t carry the same weight if used in evidence.
It wouldn t be deemed inadmissible.
I don t know if the same rules apply to civil court as no experience in that area.
I’m a civil practitioner and basically you’re correct. The test in civil is far less than criminal. The civil test is ‘balance of probabilities’ opposed to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. It’s the threshold test.It s a disclosable document in court as it s a document created in the course of the investigation.
If you have said something which was recorded on the report which wasn t under caution then it wouldn t carry the same weight if used in evidence.
It wouldn t be deemed inadmissible.
I don t know if the same rules apply to civil court as no experience in that area.
Edited by Jamescrs on Tuesday 3rd June 04:57
You get into some nonsense of a thirty second of a persuit and then arrest me, then the jobs on you to prove it’s me. I take Rita, Sue & Bob too to the flicks where they start stealing my pop-corn then they’d have to go through the Civil system for my financial loss.
The test applied would be ‘balance of probabilities’ - is the DJ more convinced that it’s happened opposed to not happened. When I introduce Peter, Paul & Mary as witnesses, it’s a different world to Criminal
That said, I don’t know how you wonderful Boys and Girls conduct PACE interviews. I’m still slack-jawed to this day. The best days of my life being on the duty log…
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff