PACE witness statement??
Discussion
Apologies if this has been posted before, but has anyone used this letter? Saw it on the cover of MCN and it makes sense when you read it. My wife has just got a camera fine requesting her details (49 in a 40 zone, Cambrigeshire), so I was going to try it, only stipulation is my name must go on the form!
Worth a try??
Worth a try??
Take a look at www.pepipoo.com 
(Oh that's where MCN got its info from by the looks!).
Seems to me like its not a guaranteed get out of jail free card, but it certainly boosts your chances
(Oh that's where MCN got its info from by the looks!). Seems to me like its not a guaranteed get out of jail free card, but it certainly boosts your chances
Julianhj said:
One of my peers on my police training course asked my tutors about this earlier in the week - complete rubbish, apparently.
I fear general police trainers of probationers are not exactly the most reliable source of up to date law knowledge. IMHO half of them are unqualified PC's without even OSPRE Pt 1 qualification, and ex officers who haven't had to deal with PACE in the real world for a few years (at least).
PACE is a very specialist area, and the caution is but a tiny bit that has received scant attention at BiB initial training as is was seen as 'done and dusted'in 1967. The fact it was given and the circumstances were hardly toughed (have a lok at the curent probationer nots). It may be 'sorted', but there is always room for a new angle I feel????
leftie said:
One of my peers on my police training course asked my tutors about this earlier in the week - complete rubbish, apparently.
I fear general police trainers of probationers are not exactly the most reliable source of up to date law knowledge. IMHO half of them are unqualified PC's without even OSPRE Pt 1 qualification, and ex officers who haven't had to deal with PACE in the real world for a few years (at least).
PACE is a very specialist area, and the caution is but a tiny bit that has received scant attention at BiB initial training as is was seen as 'done and dusted'in 1967. The fact it was given and the circumstances were hardly toughed (have a lok at the curent probationer nots). It may be 'sorted', but there is always room for a new angle I feel????
I'm on the first intake of a brand new university-based course, most of my trainers are serving officers with over 20 years experience, and the officer in question has around 25 years experience. The course I'm on is completely different to Centrex residential training, and has been two years in the making. All the information we're given is absolutely current, to the extent that we're given handouts with updates to our 2006 Blackstones textbooks.
This has been discussed in SP & L
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=258094&f=10&h=0
Have a look
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=258094&f=10&h=0
Have a look
Muncher said:
It's not an issue for the police to decide, their opinion on the matter is largely irrelevant. It boils down to what the CPS do about the matter.
Indeed. Police Officers are at the coalface of law enforcement, no question, but if they were the fount of all knowledge on the finer points of law then we wouldn't need lawyers. JonRB said:
It's not an issue for the police to decide, their opinion on the matter is largely irrelevant. It boils down to what the CPS do about the matter.
Indeed Jon. Especially with matters involving the Bill of Rights Act, 99% of Officers will not have a clue what you are referring to, most lawyers won't and only judges in the higher courts will appreciate its significance. Ultimately it will be decided by the House of Lords.
I'd give the PACE letter a crack if I was looking at a lost licence. BiB aren't the ideal people to ask about case law, that's what solicitors are for. They get to spend their entire careers arguing over the significance of a comma in what ever piece of legislation their client has fallen foul of....
Parliament makes laws.
The Police report offenders.
The CPS prosecute offenders.
The courts rule on prosecutions.
Where the interpretation of the statutes by courts in their rulings, frustrates the spirit of the legislation or will of parliament, then the laws are amended by parliament or new ones introduced & around we go again.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th April 00:22
The Police report offenders.
The CPS prosecute offenders.
The courts rule on prosecutions.
Where the interpretation of the statutes by courts in their rulings, frustrates the spirit of the legislation or will of parliament, then the laws are amended by parliament or new ones introduced & around we go again.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th April 00:22
From personal experience I'd advise that if you're going to use the PACE response then be sure to see it all the way though to court.
I made the mistake of bottling out at the Summons stage and chose to plead guilty by post and was hit with punitive fines to the tune of £205 (£170 fine, £35 costs) plus the 3 points.
I made the mistake of bottling out at the Summons stage and chose to plead guilty by post and was hit with punitive fines to the tune of £205 (£170 fine, £35 costs) plus the 3 points.
Julianhj said:
One of my peers on my police training course asked my tutors about this earlier in the week - complete rubbish, apparently.
I fear general police trainers of probationers are not exactly the most reliable source of up to date law knowledge. IMHO half of them are unqualified PC's without even OSPRE Pt 1 qualification, and ex officers who haven't had to deal with PACE in the real world for a few years (at least).
PACE is a very specialist area, and the caution is but a tiny bit that has received scant attention at BiB initial training as is was seen as 'done and dusted'in 1967. The fact it was given and the circumstances were hardly toughed (have a lok at the curent probationer nots). It may be 'sorted', but there is always room for a new angle I feel????
I'm on the first intake of a brand new university-based course, most of my trainers are serving officers with over 20 years experience, and the officer in question has around 25 years experience. The course I'm on is completely different to Centrex residential training, and has been two years in the making. All the information we're given is absolutely current, to the extent that we're given handouts with updates to our 2006 Blackstones textbooks.
My god some people are gullable.
What the hell is a University based course?
Why should an officer of the laws length of service be important with respect to recent judgements? In fact, surely this must work against them.
This letter has been used, as have many other methods to overcome the corrupt laws in the UK. Nothing that occurs on any sort of course except perhaps a Law degree is at all relavent. This issue is about law making not enforcement. As the SP&L forum has now become a waste of time perhaps PH is not the place to discuss this stuff.
nonegreen said:
One of my peers on my police training course asked my tutors about this earlier in the week - complete rubbish, apparently.
I fear general police trainers of probationers are not exactly the most reliable source of up to date law knowledge. IMHO half of them are unqualified PC's without even OSPRE Pt 1 qualification, and ex officers who haven't had to deal with PACE in the real world for a few years (at least).
PACE is a very specialist area, and the caution is but a tiny bit that has received scant attention at BiB initial training as is was seen as 'done and dusted'in 1967. The fact it was given and the circumstances were hardly toughed (have a lok at the curent probationer nots). It may be 'sorted', but there is always room for a new angle I feel????
I'm on the first intake of a brand new university-based course, most of my trainers are serving officers with over 20 years experience, and the officer in question has around 25 years experience. The course I'm on is completely different to Centrex residential training, and has been two years in the making. All the information we're given is absolutely current, to the extent that we're given handouts with updates to our 2006 Blackstones textbooks.
My god some people are gullable.
What the hell is a University based course?
Why should an officer of the laws length of service be important with respect to recent judgements? In fact, surely this must work against them.
This letter has been used, as have many other methods to overcome the corrupt laws in the UK. Nothing that occurs on any sort of course except perhaps a Law degree is at all relavent. This issue is about law making not enforcement. As the SP&L forum has now become a waste of time perhaps PH is not the place to discuss this stuff.
There's really no need to get so agressive Nonegreen - I can see why many BIB have stopped posting on SP&L. I was addressing particular points raised by Leftie about current police training, and those who administer it. In particular I was commenting about the tutors knowledge of PACE, and how PACE is taught - it is no longer 'touched upon', and the entire training process has been completely overhauled for the first time in 60 years. This means that they have addressed what is relevant for new police officers. We do have to learn a number of sections of PACE verbatim. All of our information is up-to-date.
In my original post I did say 'apparently', I wasn't quoting it as gospel, merely that the issue had come up in our discussions, and that was my tutor's viewpoint.
The university-based schemes coming into use by most forces are a move away from the more militaristic training colleges. It's a 43 week course rather than around 12 weeks on the old scheme, and it alternates between stints on campus learning the theory, and periods spent on duty with a tutor constable putting that learning into practice.
HTH
Julianhj said:
One of my peers on my police training course asked my tutors about this earlier in the week - complete rubbish, apparently.
I fear general police trainers of probationers are not exactly the most reliable source of up to date law knowledge. IMHO half of them are unqualified PC's without even OSPRE Pt 1 qualification, and ex officers who haven't had to deal with PACE in the real world for a few years (at least).
PACE is a very specialist area, and the caution is but a tiny bit that has received scant attention at BiB initial training as is was seen as 'done and dusted'in 1967. The fact it was given and the circumstances were hardly toughed (have a lok at the curent probationer nots). It may be 'sorted', but there is always room for a new angle I feel????
I'm on the first intake of a brand new university-based course, most of my trainers are serving officers with over 20 years experience, and the officer in question has around 25 years experience. The course I'm on is completely different to Centrex residential training, and has been two years in the making. All the information we're given is absolutely current, to the extent that we're given handouts with updates to our 2006 Blackstones textbooks.
My god some people are gullable.
What the hell is a University based course?
Why should an officer of the laws length of service be important with respect to recent judgements? In fact, surely this must work against them.
This letter has been used, as have many other methods to overcome the corrupt laws in the UK. Nothing that occurs on any sort of course except perhaps a Law degree is at all relavent. This issue is about law making not enforcement. As the SP&L forum has now become a waste of time perhaps PH is not the place to discuss this stuff.
There's really no need to get so agressive Nonegreen - I can see why many BIB have stopped posting on SP&L. I was addressing particular points raised by Leftie about current police training, and those who administer it. In particular I was commenting about the tutors knowledge of PACE, and how PACE is taught - it is no longer 'touched upon', and the entire training process has been completely overhauled for the first time in 60 years. This means that they have addressed what is relevant for new police officers. We do have to learn a number of sections of PACE verbatim. All of our information is up-to-date.
In my original post I did say 'apparently', I wasn't quoting it as gospel, merely that the issue had come up in our discussions, and that was my tutor's viewpoint.
The university-based schemes coming into use by most forces are a move away from the more militaristic training colleges. It's a 43 week course rather than around 12 weeks on the old scheme, and it alternates between stints on campus learning the theory, and periods spent on duty with a tutor constable putting that learning into practice.
HTH
The old training was 32 weeks, with 12 weeks residential as I recall, and at least 12 weeks with a tutor and 3 extra weeks on local courses before independent patrol. Anyway, I think the key message is that the BiB are not the source of legal advice I would take. Having Blackstones doesn't mean you either read it, understand it or can apply it in real world settings and IMHO having 20 years of police experience doesn't give you an indepth knowledge of PACE, just a working knowledge (and I says that as an ex-police trainer with 20 odd years experience, the last 5 of which working exclusively with PACE).
I supect a specualtive punt on the PACE letter, especially if it is well known, will result in a 32p wasted stamp and if you push the issue to court some extra prosecution costs.
If I was on a totter I would probably give it a go.
Lawyers manage to mess up lives, jiobs and economies in many other ways, why not let them have a go at this too?! (discuss)
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff