Refusing to 'grass' is perverting the course of justice?

[Mont Blanc]

Firstly, my apologies for the use of the term 'grass', I absolutely detest it as being a term of the underclass, but I simply needed a shorter thread title.

I was doing a bit of work while 'Traffic Cops' was playing on my TV, and I couldn't help but pay attention to a particular segment involving some motorcyclists.

3 bikers out together for a 'spirited Sunday ride'. 2 of them riding semi-sensibly, 1 riding like he's on a track. Police see them and decide to pull them over to warn one of them for having a small plate, and give them a general warning about behaving themselves.

The two sensible bikers pull over straight away, but the other one fails to stop and leads the police on a fast chase, before promptly leaving them in the dust.

The police return to where the other 2 are still stopped at the side of the road waiting. The traffic officer tells them they were "riding fine" and he "has no problems with them" but wants the details of the other biker. The bikers, somewhat understandably, start saying very little, and make mutterings about not really knowing who the other bloke is.

Traffic officer then goes absolutely batst metal with them, and starts telling them, very loudly and repeatedly, that they will be going to prison for perverting the course of justice if they don't tell him exactly who the other biker is, in detail, including a phone number and address, immediately. He then continues to reiterate the threat of prison, court, and serious criminal offences to the two bikers, until one of the riders cracks and shows him the Facebook page, and therefore then name, of the bloke who got away.

My understanding is this: It could possibly be perverting the course of justice if you give false information to the police, but it isn't a crime of any kind to remain silent and refuse to give a witness statement.

Am I correct or talking utter nonsense?

[Smollet]

I guess knowing information but deliberately withholding it could be classed as hindering a police investigation which I think is a crime.
Btw snitch is an acceptable alternative to grass

[KTMsm]

Unfortunately no it isn't. Although I think it should be

It's why all you see on police interviews by those who know the score is "no comment"

[Bigends]

They have no legal obligation to answer the officers questions. Its certainly not perverting the course of justice.

[Mont Blanc]

Smollet said:

I guess knowing information but deliberately withholding it could be classed as hindering a police investigation which I think is a crime.
Btw snitch is an acceptable alternative to grass

If you are referring to 'Obstruction', then merely refusing to name the suspect wouldn't fall into that category:

"The offence of hindering a police officer who is in the course of doing his duty (Police Act 1996 s 89). “Obstruction” includes any intentional interference, e.g. by physical force, threats, telling lies or giving misleading information, refusing to cooperate in removing an obstruction, or warning a person who has committed a crime so that he can escape detection (e.g. warning a speeding driver that there is a police trap ahead). It is not, however, an offence merely not to answer, or to advise someone not to answer, police questions"

As I stated in my OP, my understanding is that no one is under any obligation to answer police questions, or assist them with an investigation in any way.

(unless you are the driver of a vehicle. Then you obviously have to give your identification details under the road traffic act)

The reason I find this interesting, is a very similar thing happened to me about 10-12 years ago. I refused to give information about another driver. In that particular case, the officer asking me "Who was it?" simply said "Fair enough" when I politely declined to give him any information.

I was just quite surprised with the 'perverting the course of justice' rant by the officer on Traffic Cops. I thought it was deceitful and unprofessional.

Edited by Mont Blanc on Sunday 7th January 16:11

[XCP]

Isn't there something about possessing information regarding identifying the user of a motor vehicle. ( doesn't have to be the owner/keeper)?

S.172 (2)b?

Edited by XCP on Sunday 7th January 16:27

[Mont Blanc]

XCP said:

Isn't there something about possessing information regarding identifying the user of a motor vehicle. ( doesn't have to be the owner/keeper)?

Surely the requirement to given information about a driver only applies to the owner/keeper of a vehicle?

[agtlaw]

Mont Blanc said:

Am I correct or talking utter nonsense?

Correct. PCJ is not an offence that can be committed by omission.

[Mont Blanc]

agtlaw said:

Mont Blanc said:

Am I correct or talking utter nonsense?

Correct. PCJ is not an offence that can be committed by omission.

Thank you Sir.

Helpful and prompt as always.

[XCP]

Mont Blanc said:

XCP said:

Isn't there something about possessing information regarding identifying the user of a motor vehicle. ( doesn't have to be the owner/keeper)?

Surely the requirement to given information about a driver only applies to the owner/keeper of a vehicle?

Unless you can quote the relevant law that says you have to identify the user of any vehicle?

I checked. S.172 (2) b. Refers to 'any other person'
Unless I am reading it wrong ( could be !)

Edited by XCP on Sunday 7th January 16:34

[sunbeam alpine]

Surely all they had to say was "the two of us were out for a ride and that guy just joined and stayed with us".

I appreciate that the pressure of the moment might not be conducive to quick thinking and not panicking, especially if the other 2 had no previous experience of interacting with the police.

[Mont Blanc]

Zeeky said:

An officer threatening a witness with harm which the officer knows cannot happen, with the intent to intimidate the witness into giving information that would be helpful to an investigation, but which the witness has no obligation to provide, is wholly unnacceptable.


Manifestly, it ought to be a misconduct matter.

My thoughts exactly.

I watched it and thought it was massively unacceptable behaviour by the officer.

He informed the other two bikers that he was 'very angry' at the situation, and his rage no doubt contributed to his decision to threaten them, but in some ways this just makes it even more of a poor show. Getting angry with witnesses is never appropriate.

I wonder if there could be any legal recourse against the officer by the biker who cracked under the threats and gave the name of the rider? Probably not, but I did wonder.

[Mont Blanc]

sunbeam alpine said:

Surely all they had to say was "the two of us were out for a ride and that guy just joined and stayed with us".

I appreciate that the pressure of the moment might not be conducive to quick thinking and not panicking, especially if the other 2 had no previous experience of interacting with the police.

They did. They said they met him at a petrol station (that bit was actually true) and then clammed up and didn't want to say anything else.

It was at this point the officer got very angry with them and said he would have them in court, possibly resulting in a prison sentence, and their lives ruined, for perverting the course of justice if they didn't give him the information he wanted.

Even myself, as a layperson, knew this was an entirely false threat. As mentioned above, the same happened to me many years ago, but the officer who dealt with me was entirely reasonable.

[Zeeky]

XCP said:

Mont Blanc said:

XCP said:

Isn't there something about possessing information regarding identifying the user of a motor vehicle. ( doesn't have to be the owner/keeper)?

Surely the requirement to given information about a driver only applies to the owner/keeper of a vehicle?

Unless you can quote the relevant law that says you have to identify the user of any vehicle?

I checked. S.172 (2) b. Refers to 'any other person'
Unless I am reading it wrong ( could be !)

Edited by XCP on Sunday 7th January 16:34

Can the requirement be made orally? (Sub-section 7)

[XCP]

What do you make of the bit of law I quoted?

I accept it isn't PCOJ, but it looks like they may be committing an offence?

[fourstardan]

The copper was just trying to make his life easier.

[XCP]

I would imagine that a verbal request would suffice, in the same way than an NIP may be given verbally.

[LosingGrip]

XCP said:

I checked. S.172 (2) b. Refers to 'any other person'
Unless I am reading it wrong ( could be !)

Edited by XCP on Sunday 7th January 16:34

That's how I and my skipper have read it in the past. I've never had the need to use it though.

[Zeeky]

XCP said:

What do you make of the bit of law I quoted?

I accept it isn't PCOJ, but it looks like they may be committing an offence?

I think it is a very good point but I don't think the request was made in accordance with the legislation. The legislation wasn't referred to by the officer and sub-section 7 appears to require the request to be made in writing, although the use of the word 'may' doesn't help.


(7)A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served [F4in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules, if the alleged offence took place in England and Wales, or by post otherwise]; and where it is so made—

If it is applicable, then the request could be made in the usual way.

XCP said:

I would imagine that a verbal request would suffice, in the same way than an NIP may be given verbally.

The relevant legislation to NIPS expressly authorises this.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

(1)he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration,

Section 172 RTA 1988 only refers to a notice in writing.

[agtlaw]

Zeeky said:

…
Section 172 RTA 1988 only refers to a notice in writing.

Note the word ‘may.’

The requirement may also be made verbally. E.g. in a formal police interview.

Lowe v Lester discussed previously, including here: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...