The English caution

[gently bentley]

Troops. As many of you will know I am up here in God,s country. Our caution is "You do not have to say anything, anything you do say will be noted/(tape recorded) and may be used in evidence"

I know that in Englandshire this was changed a few years back. Satisfy my quest for knowledge.....Why? What brought about this change?

Vanhosen I wait with baited breath..

[vonhosen]

gently bentley said:

Troops. As many of you will know I am up here in God,s country. Our caution is "You do not have to say anything, anything you do say will be noted/(tape recorded) and may be used in evidence"

I know that in Englandshire this was changed a few years back. Satisfy my quest for knowledge.....Why? What brought about this change?

Vanhosen I wait with baited breath..

It was changes primarily as a result of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.
This meant that adverse inferences could be drawn, where an accussed failed to mention facts when interviewed that he/she later relied on in their defence.

[gently bentley]

vonhosen said:

gently bentley said:

Troops. As many of you will know I am up here in God,s country. Our caution is "You do not have to say anything, anything you do say will be noted/(tape recorded) and may be used in evidence"

I know that in Englandshire this was changed a few years back. Satisfy my quest for knowledge.....Why? What brought about this change?

Vanhosen I wait with baited breath..

It was changes primarily as a result of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.
This meant that adverse inferences could be drawn, where an accussed failed to mention facts when interviewed that he/she later relied on in their defence.

Cheers. I knew your radar would be on. However what led to this act being passed? Was there a problem that was identified? Was a political decision based on votes? While I imagine its great for the police in England in Scotland it goes against the very principle of Scots Law (the right to silence) I would like it to come in up here on a selfish basis but I am interested in the hitory of the decision.

P.S. your getting faster in your replies by the way!

[gently bentley]

Von sorry messed up my quotes there.

[FNG]

Yup. Effectively "tell us everything now, or it'll look worse for you later".

Not a good day for retaining the right to silence, really, though, was it?


O/T Q to gently: if that's god's own country why did he give you the midge, and keep watering you all so much?

Also, did you know that on entering Scotland you get a sign saying "Welcome to Scotland". Fair enough.

On the way back, until fairly recently it said "Welcome to Cumbria".

The natural conclusion being that Scotland is England's largest county

(I lived there for 17 years BTW - heard them all and given plenty back!)

[gently bentley]

FNG said:

Yup. Effectively "tell us everything now, or it'll look worse for you later".

Not a good day for retaining the right to silence, really, though, was it?


O/T Q to gently: if that's god's own country why did he give you the midge, and keep watering you all so much?

Also, did you know that on entering Scotland you get a sign saying "Welcome to Scotland". Fair enough.

On the way back, until fairly recently it said "Welcome to Cumbria".

The natural conclusion being that Scotland is England's largest county

(I lived there for 17 years BTW - heard them all and given plenty back!)

Sigh. I'll not rise to it.

Bollocks yes I will. Right the invasion is back on. Its welcome to Scotland because you are entering another very proud country. The welcome to Cumbria is because Scotland is so great the English are trying to coin in on the poor toorist who think they are still in God's country. 5mins out the car and they realise they are in Engerlund (land of the thug)

Midgies Pha. They only eat English toffs. Rain? Makes the grass grow and gets the salmon moving.

Enough of this. I like England. I too lived there for 6 years and have many good friends. Surrey I thought was the best of all.

Thanks for quick reply though.

[FNG]

Glad it's all in good humour. Not always the way and a little sad to report that.

I was there on holiday last summer and I got eaten alive...

[vonhosen]

GB

Here is what it's about
www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?less=false&lid=4076&tid=155

[gently bentley]

Thats way more than I expected but my question is WHY was it changed? What was wrong with the way it was? Was it recognised that too many people were delivering reasons at trial after they had been given ample time to think of a way to get out of it?

[justinp1]

gently bentley said:

Thats way more than I expected but my question is WHY was it changed? What was wrong with the way it was? Was it recognised that too many people were delivering reasons at trial after they had been given ample time to think of a way to get out of it?

I can guess this is probably why.

For example, (which you will of course be able to guess, but for the uninitiated) a burglar is caught red handed...

Snide comments about the chances of this aside... he could say nothing on arrest and then arrive later in court with his defence team and say that he was walking home, he saw a door wide open and he heard a scream and thus crept into the house to see if the occupant was OK.

In effect though, although the standard of best practice I researched when defending myself is to in effect take a statement if necessary and/or asked after the caution and ask the accused to sign it, in my case it does not happen.

I was most disgruntled to find that when the statements of the three officers came though, the most that was written about my detailed and honest defence which I immediately gave in detail was the first five words... and that was apparantly stated as I spoke about myself in the third person!? Of course the bit they all ommitted was precisely the important bit which was a perfectly believeable and legitimate circumstance which tallied completely with what they saw which would completely vindicate me!

As it was my defence at the time remained my defence all the way through the legal process until I was aquitted. What annoyed me though is that I *should* have had more credit of the fact that this was the case. Indeed it does seem that in practice in my case certainly is that it is used to catch the accused out rather than to protect their rights.

My personal view anyway!

[vonhosen]

gently bentley said:

Thats way more than I expected but my question is WHY was it changed? What was wrong with the way it was? Was it recognised that too many people were delivering reasons at trial after they had been given ample time to think of a way to get out of it?

The changes followed the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee report & the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (Working Group) on the Right to Silence in 1991.
The main reason for introduction was that the existing law was being exploited by 'professional' criminals, while innocent people would rarely exercise their right. Adequate safeguards were said to exist with free legal advice available to all.

[gently bentley]

Im confusd still. The householder would give evidence that the scraeming was a lie. So stuffed there. Then there is no way a Scottish police officer would get an arrested person to sign anything.

The bad guy can come up with anything. If the Crown prove it to be a lie then its conviction time.

So what made the caution change in England?

[gently bentley]

vonhosen said:

gently bentley said:

Thats way more than I expected but my question is WHY was it changed? What was wrong with the way it was? Was it recognised that too many people were delivering reasons at trial after they had been given ample time to think of a way to get out of it?

The changes followed the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee report & the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (Working Group) on the Right to Silence in 1991.
The main reason for introduction was that the existing law was being exploited by 'professional' criminals, while innocent people would rarely exercise their right. Adequate safeguards were said to exist with free legal advice available to all.

I see. Thank you.

[gently bentley]

Von point of note. We still don't have it in Scotland and its not a problem. Do you think its introduction in England was necessary?

[vonhosen]

gently bentley said:

Von point of note. We still don't have it in Scotland and its not a problem. Do you think its introduction in England was necessary?

Yes.

[fluffnik]

gently bentley said:

However what led to this act being passed? Was there a problem that was identified? Was a political decision based on votes? While I imagine its great for the police in England in Scotland it goes against the very principle of Scots Law (the right to silence) I would like it to come in up here on a selfish basis but I am interested in the hitory of the decision.

Creeping totalitarianism.

...even before Blair.

[thinfourth]

Quinny said:

gently bentley said:

[quote=FNG]Sigh. I'll not rise to it.

Bollocks yes I will. Right the invasion is back on. Its welcome to Scotland because you are entering another very proud country. The welcome to Cumbria is because Scotland is so great the English are trying to coin in on the poor toorist who think they are still in God's country. 5mins out the car and they realise they are in Engerlund (land of the thug)

Midgies Pha. They only eat English toffs. Rain? Makes the grass grow and gets the salmon moving.

Enough of this. I like England. I too lived there for 6 years and have many good friends. Surrey I thought was the best of all.

Thanks for quick reply though.

Hadrian had the right idea

Too damn right the man was a genius

But as a Scotsman i have to inform you that history got it slightly wrong He wasn't a roman he was scottish.


But seriously it is terrible up here the weather is awful, the roads are terrible, the countryside is hideous, the midge will eat your entire arm, we have speed cameras everywhere, its over populated, the neds (chavs) are everywhere.

I would just stay south of the border its better for all involved

[jasandjules]

gently bentley said:

Von point of note. We still don't have it in Scotland and its not a problem. Do you think its introduction in England was necessary?

It was necessary for the Tony Blair We are Tough on Crime but still aren't getting convictions School.

From the aspect of Justice, it was most certainly not needed. The burden of proof is still beyond a reasonable doubt, and the bastion of justice was once upheld in this country, slowly but surely undermined by more and more Leftie legislation to look good on the statistics.

[gently bentley]

I would have thought the old caution was fine. It works in Scotland. The disclosure thing seems a bit mad to me though. Example. My understanding is you investigate a crime find the bad guy then have a sit down with his solicitor and tell him what evidence you have then you interview the bad guy. Far be it from me to suggest that the solicitor may drop his client a few hints on what questions to ask.

In Scotland you investigate the crime find the bad guy then interview him. (He ain't getting within 10,000,000 miles of his solicitor by the way.

So you have a DNA scene hit on him. Don't tell him that ask him if he has been at the scene of the crime ever then after he has said no more times than you can count tell him a witness has identified him as having been there.

You will get the no they are wrong it wasn't me they are wrong routine (fall about laughing and charge him)

Let him find out later it was a DNA hit. He will not be giving evidence in court and he just sat on tape under caution telling you he was never there. A Scottish Judge will not be interested in a change of story at trial. Conviction, conviction, conviction.

By the way on another DNA note. Is it not strange that before scientists discovered DNA all rape suspects said they never touched her. Now they all say it was concential. Weird eh?

[hedders]

gently bentley said:

By the way on another DNA note. Is it not strange that before scientists discovered DNA all rape suspects said they never touched her. Now they all say it was concential. Weird eh?

That would suggest that ALL rape 'suspects' are guilty!