Police bullyied me into talking while under caution

[katedog]

"Whatever the stats JonCris is right to give that advice." How on earth do you apply "Above all else, use your common sense, be respectful and reasonable to people and companies." to my statement ? That aside I suggest you read a few good legal references, notably Supreme Court Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson but there are many others. Google will bring up the same opinion from many many well qualified legal professionals - although naturally not many as well qualified as Jackson. In an interview or even a conversation a policeperson - there is no such thing as an off the record conversation whether you have been given a PACE caution or not - the policeperson has a full picture of the case they are trying to make whereas the civilian usually knows nothing about it sometimes not even knowing the nature of the charge being investigated or whether he/she is even a suspect. The civilian also has no clue whether the conduct they have engaged in is even criminal or not and with the number of statutes that we have how can anyone know that they have not in all innocence done something that is nevertheless prohibited ? It is a no-win situation. If the police have a case let them bring it. Many people believe that of you have done nothing wrong then what is the worry. That is a mistake. I refer you to Justice Jackson and others. Even some legal professionals have taken the view 'I am innocent, it can't hurt me' to later find themselves in court as the defendant and convicted. People confuse actual guilt and innocence with evidence in its many forms and the possible consequences which can come about irrespective of actual innocence, perceived or real innocence. This is on a par with the care you should use if in the witness box if you are he accused, you should not volunteer information in cross-examination. Why on earth help the prosecution make their case against you ? Talking to the police is just the same and occurs earlier in the process. Just what information do the police have ? Has someone of good standing in the community said they saw you 'do the deed' however mistaken they may be ? Just admitting that you were in such and such town/location at a certain time can get you into trouble especially if you go on to say that you didn't 'do it'. Because of the mistaken witness this will be used as evidence that you are lying ! And then there is the multitude of statutes and regulations to consider, do you know them all ? how do you know none have been broken ? Although Jackson was USA the situation is even more precarious in the UK - we have no right to silence built in. However we do have a right to silence once cautioned. If a policeperson wants to talk to you about anything at all I suggest you start by responding initially with "Am I suspected of an offence ?". If they say yes then tell them that you need to be cautioned and clam up ! You are under no obligation to tell them anything and the way the system actually works it is foolish to do anything else in my view - and that of Jackson and many others. Perceived moral and social imperatives to talk to the police count for absolutely nothing in court. The court is there to convict people and the police's job is make cases. You have no obligation to talk to the police at all.

 

 

There is an awful lot to read about Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson but the one thing that stands ou tis that he is an american judge who was also a prosecutor on the nurenberg trials.

I dont really see what he has to do with the britsih legal system and PACE in particular.

 

No one said there was such a thing as an off the record interview.

 

what I was trying to express was my opinion, based on personal experience, of MINOR motoring offfences.

 

Now criminal cases are another thing alltogether but still my advice there would be if you have done nothing wrong and can expliane that and evidence it then tell the nice policeman as soon as you can.

 

I still believe that honesty is the best policy. I was brought up a by parents who gave me a good set of moral values by which i try to lead my lifee, if the rest of the country did the same we might not be in the mess we are.

 

But yes i do agree with you if you have broken the law and you want to try and wriggle out of it latter then say nothing til you've spoken to your brief.

[crem]

 

Now criminal cases are another thing alltogether but still my advice there would be if you have done nothing wrong and can expliane that and evidence it then tell the nice policeman as soon as you can.

 

Please can you explain how you identify the nice poiceman fromn the nasty policeman?

I still believe that honesty is the best policy. I was brought up a by parents who gave me a good set of moral values by which i try to lead my lifee, if the rest of the country did the same we might not be in the mess we are.

I too was well brought up with morals, however, I have also learnt over time that few people share these morals, including "the nice policeman".

 

But yes i do agree with you if you have broken the law and you want to try and wriggle out of it latter then say nothing til you've spoken to your brief.

Who says anyone has broken the law at this stage and is trying to wriggle out of it? Would that be the nice policeman again?

 

..

[katedog]

Original by katedog

 

Second by crem

 

Third by katedog

 

Now criminal cases are another thing alltogether but still my advice there would be if you have done nothing wrong and can expliane that and evidence it then tell the nice policeman as soon as you can.

 

Please can you explain how you identify the nice poiceman fromn the nasty policeman?

I think you know as well as i that i meant the police in general

 

I still believe that honesty is the best policy. I was brought up a by parents who gave me a good set of moral values by which i try to lead my lifee, if the rest of the country did the same we might not be in the mess we are.

I too was well brought up with morals, however, I have also learnt over time that few people share these morals, including "the nice policeman".

Im sorry but i have to disagree. I am not naive and have a vast amount of life skills/experience to call upon and i believe that the majority of people in the world are decent and honest and i feel sorry for anyone who leads their life thinking otherwise.

 

 

But yes i do agree with you if you have broken the law and you want to try and wriggle out of it latter then say nothing til you've spoken to your brief.

Who says anyone has broken the law at this stage and is trying to wriggle out of it? Would that be the nice policeman again?..

 

Please dont miss-quote me. I said if you have broken the law.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

what I was trying to express was my opinion, based on personal experience, of MINOR motoring offfences.

 

Now criminal cases are another thing alltogether but still my advice there would be if you have done nothing wrong and can expliane that and evidence it then tell the nice policeman as soon as you can.

 

Motoring offences are criminal.

[lamma]

There is an awful lot to read about Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson but the one thing that stands ou tis that he is an american judge who was also a prosecutor on the nurenberg trials.

I dont really see what he has to do with the britsih legal system and PACE in particular.

 

No one said there was such a thing as an off the record interview.

 

what I was trying to express was my opinion, based on personal experience, of MINOR motoring offfences.

 

Now criminal cases are another thing alltogether but still my advice there would be if you have done nothing wrong and can expliane that and evidence it then tell the nice policeman as soon as you can.

 

I still believe that honesty is the best policy. I was brought up a by parents who gave me a good set of moral values by which i try to lead my lifee, if the rest of the country did the same we might not be in the mess we are.

 

But yes i do agree with you if you have broken the law and you want to try and wriggle out of it latter then say nothing til you've spoken to your brief.

 

I pre-empted all of these points already. Jackson a pre-eminent judge and national and international level. Right to silence and PACE covered also. Many have ended up convicted through talking to the 'nice policeman'. The moral imperative is irrelevant in court and when talking to the police - you are not there as a test of your morals - you are there as you are charged with an offense. British legal system ? - it applies to any legal system. I drew enough comparison and distinction about that. Who said the believable and credible but mistaken witness was in the UK ? it is the way police work everywhere. Bar some countries where the situation is worse ! I strongly suggest people read up on what Jackson said about this - and google 'never talk to the police' and form your own opinions, leaving irrelevant perceptions of morals and social imperatives aside - as already mentioned.

[katedog]

I pre-empted all of these points already. Jackson a pre-eminent judge and national and international level. Right to silence and PACE covered also. Many have ended up convicted through talking to the 'nice policeman'.No one was ever convicted by talking to the police, you only get convicted on weight of evidence. If you commited the offence and confessed then so be it. The moral imperative is irrelevant in court and when talking to the police - you are not there as a test of your morals - you are there as you are charged Our poster has not been charged he has been reported for summons and then dealt with by fixed penalty notice. with an offense. British legal system ? - it applies to any legal system. No it doesnt I drew enough comparison and distinction about that. Who said the believable and credible but mistaken witness was in the UK ? I was just guessing that the OP was in the UK, sorry england or wales. it is the way police work everywhere. Bar some countries where the situation is worse ! What knowledge experience qualifies you to say that I strongly suggest people read up on what Jackson said about this - and google 'never talk to the police' and form your own opinions, leaving irrelevant perceptions of morals and social imperatives aside - as already mentioned.

Good advice.

[vinnychoff]

does anyone know the law that it is covered by?

for motorcycles?

can i use the mot guidelines in law? in court

thanks

[JonCris]

I don't know who wrote the bits in red but whoever it was they have little understanding of the real world or the police Of course people get charged & unfortunately convicted even though they didn't commit the crime based entirely on something they said or even didn't say - anyone who thinks the practice of 'verbals' ended with PACE is sadly wrong - the most glaring recent example I can think of is Colin Stagg

 

You've all seen how incompetent & downright hostile the civil courts can be to the ordinary person & if you think the criminal justice system is any better then your kidding yourself - its often much much worse as it often means someone being deprived of their liberty

[JonCris]

PS why does anyone think the right to silence has been challenged in this way - for the benefit of the accused! dream on

[lamma]

The coloured text is katedog's not mine. I disagree. As silence is taken as consensus and a failure to rebut I have to comment. "No one was ever convicted by talking to the police," Completely and utterly wrong, many innocent people have been convicted as result of talking to the police, many famous cases and lots of cases that never made headlines. "I was just guessing that the OP was in the UK, sorry england or wales." re-read my posts but slower this time and absorb them. its not about my location its about the way the courts and the police work. "What knowledge experience qualifies you to say that" I am well travelled, well read and have certain qualifications (which will never be revealed in a public forum). I will quote Jackson as relevant and pre-eminent judge (and to save you looking it up) "Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances." As the USA has a right to silence which we don't it serves as a much better example. As I said already its worse in the UK as we don't have that right so we have to navigate to it - those that do not are easy meat, okay ot may not have happened to you YET but of it does it will be a hard lesson learned and one that can be avoided. See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001) "One of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth." People should also read up on police interrogation techniques. And please remember that although we don't have an enshrined right to silence we do have a considerable wight of law about interviews and evidence etc. this was brought about by use of 'the verbals' and coerced confessions. Of course the police and the courts and the government will press with the line that is 'right' to talk to the police as you have a 'public duty' to do so. Those days are long gone. And it the police and the government and the courts that carry the burden of public duty not us. Please read up. Hopefully you will never have to put it into practice. As an anecdote I helped the police. this is what happened. Four police very keen to proceed to pursue an event that I had witnessed. The policeperson who spoke to me put my response in his notebook as I spoke it. My response was just eight words, nearly all single syllables spoken slowly so he could make his notes> he rad it back to me as he was writing it - probably because of the presence of his three colleagues - and got it utterly and completely wrong. If they had proceeded on the basis of his notes the wrong result was guaranteed. I corrected him and got him to read back his notes to ensure accuracy. Much embarrassment for the four of them but that was not the point. If anyone reading this gets spoken to by the police as a witness I suggest you take equal care that the police get it right. In this example a case could have gone to court and the policeperson's uncorrected contemporaneous notes would have been taken as true. See how it easy it can happen ? Better yet if given good faith information as witness then record it and send it a copy of the recording to the police and or a transcript (easy to do with voice to text software and a good quality recording).

[lamma]

does anyone know the law that it is covered by?

for motorcycles?

can i use the mot guidelines in law? in court

thanks

 

why not MOT Testers Manual make sure you can prove you still have the original tyre

[JonCris]

Watch this Its a great presentation on why you, guilty OR innocent, should never talk to the police

 

Professor James Daune

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

[katedog]

Watch this Its a great presentation on why you, guilty OR innocent, should never talk to the police

 

Professor James Daune

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

 

 

Very entertaining, and I'll accept that its not a work of fiction for entertainmet, but we do not live in the USA we do not have a fifth amendment, our heresay rules are totaly different, and you do get a reduced puishment for an early addmision of guilt in this country. There are other things to say about it but that will do.

 

Our criminal justice system is the envy of the world, yes mistakes do still get made but thank god they are few and far between.

 

What sort of a country would it be if every body in it decided that they would never talk to the police. The number of convictions would plumit and criminals would rule the streets.

 

We get the police force we deserve by the amount of tax we spend to fund them and the caliber of the officer we get due to wages and the social stature that post holds from year to year.

 

Sadly the police are viewed now as second class citizens and their pay in real terms is the lowest it has been since the early 1980s.

 

I will not be posting on this thread again.

[JonCris]

You don't know your lawyers if you can suggest it could be a work of fiction it ain't. The Professor is very well known & yes we did have a 5th Amendment (& where do you think the Yanks got the idea from in the 1st place England of course) only we called it the 'Right to Silence' & the 'Right to not self-incriminate' the 'Bill of Rights' the 'Magna Carter' etc & if you don't think what is being said by the professor has any bearing on the UK then your misguided Unfortunately there are some who no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary are not going to change their minds ......... until it happens to them that is

[lamma]

Watch this Its a great presentation on why you, guilty OR innocent, should never talk to the police

 

Professor James Daune

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

 

he explains Jackson quite well. and the logic of it which applies irrespective of jurisdiction. Believing that we get the police force we deserve is also mistaken I believe. We get the police force that the government wants. Most people have absolutely any idea about what really goes on in court. Its called a bench for reasons that most people have no cognisance of.

[TD27]

thanks you sum it up correctly....for me it was scary as two of us stopped. the first question from the office and the other guy tried to question the policeman. then he raised his voice threatened with prosecuting him, approached him....so from then on i thought best to stay quiet. i said yes and gave the info where possible. i stayed polite and only respnded where asked. i wanted to question the way he was measuring the tyre but felt i could not. i took the tyre to a mot centre on the way home. they say it would be an advisory not illegal. so i plan to take the tyres to court and get someone who knows how to measure a tyre in court. hoping justice prevails

 

Yep, take the tyre along. If he's any good he will have taken full details of the tyre and noted any marks that make that tyre unique, so don't (i'm not saying you would) be tempted to take in a different tyre.

 

Apologies, I wasn't aware it was a motorcyle tyre, of course Crem is right 1mm tdpth on these.

 

Did he use a calibrated tread depth gauge? If so just be aware that he only needs to find one place where it is below to substantiate the offence. Was the mot place thorough? Could they have missed where he measured? There's quite a lot of tyre.

[TD27]

why not MOT Testers Manual make sure you can prove you still have the original tyre

 

The construction and use regulations 1986.

 

Be aware, the law around MOT and Con and Use are different!!

 

Bizarre as it sounds, they are not the same thing.

 

Hence there are things that would pass an MOT that would be an offence under con and use.

[TD27]

I pre-empted all of these points already. Jackson a pre-eminent judge and national and international level. Right to silence and PACE covered also. Many have ended up convicted through talking to the 'nice policeman'. The moral imperative is irrelevant in court and when talking to the police - you are not there as a test of your morals - you are there as you are charged with an offense. British legal system ? - it applies to any legal system. I drew enough comparison and distinction about that. Who said the believable and credible but mistaken witness was in the UK ? it is the way police work everywhere. Bar some countries where the situation is worse ! I strongly suggest people read up on what Jackson said about this - and google 'never talk to the police' and form your own opinions, leaving irrelevant perceptions of morals and social imperatives aside - as already mentioned.

 

I find myself in an unusual position here. I am the nice / nasty traffic policeman. I don't fit people up, entrap them or coerce them but I do use my discretion and enforce the law using common sense and good will.

 

I have however had a close family member go through the courts all the way to trial and eventual acquital through a mis understanding essentially.

 

Of course you make no differentiation here between the nice member of the public who has made a mistake, an oversight or engaged in a moment of madness versus the criminal who is embarking, in the middle of or just takes part in the occasional crime / career of crime.

 

Are we suggesting everyone fight the system? Clam up and say nothing? (Other than those details that you are obligated to give such as name and address, DOB if you've committed an offence?)

 

The point about comments being taken out of context is from experience correct. It can and does happen, BUT NOT ALWAYS and because of our adversarial legal system it matters not what the truth is, merely what can be proven. Of course that depends on the skill of the people involved, and that is a lottery. Of course the ability to finance the best in the profession can make a profound difference in your chances of winning. Words will be twisted and different versions of the same thing put before a jury / magistrates / judge to decide. Evidence of course comes into it, but again many times that can go either way.

 

But what are we advocating here? Help people get off who are guilty or help people who are innocent prove their innocence? Or what about people who have made a mistake but are guilty of an offence? Should they be let off, given a rap on the knuckles or put before the court and have the book thrown at them? I would suggest that depends on your perspective?

[lamma]

The construction and use regulations 1986.

 

Be aware, the law around MOT and Con and Use are different!!

 

Bizarre as it sounds, they are not the same thing.

 

Hence there are things that would pass an MOT that would be an offence under con and use.

 

I stand corrected. And thank you for it.

[patdavies]

(Other than those details that you are obligated to give such as name and address, DOB if you've committed an offence?)

 

No offence is committed until a Court says so. Until proven in Court, it remains an alleged offence.

 

But what are we advocating here? Help people get off who are guilty or help people who are innocent prove their innocence? Or what about people who have made a mistake but are guilty of an offence? Should they be let off, given a rap on the knuckles or put before the court and have the book thrown at them? I would suggest that depends on your perspective?

Guilt is a matter for a Court to determine - that's why we have them. So advising people of the legalities(and technicalities) relating to an alleged offence is perfectly in order.

 

To take issue with the second part of the sentence; there should be no need for anybody who is innocent to prove their innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[crem]

To take issue with the second part of the sentence; there should be no need for anybody who is innocent to prove their innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

We would all like to believe that is still true pat, but is becoming more and more the opposite all the time I'm afraid.

[TD27]

No offence is committed until a Court says so. Until proven in Court, it remains an alleged offence. I stand corrected, alleged offence

 

1.Guilt is a matter for a Court to determine - that's why we have them. So advising people of the legalities(and technicalities) relating to an alleged offence is perfectly in order.

 

To take issue with the second part of the sentence; 2.there should be no need for anybody who is innocent to prove their innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

1. Or the individual who has committed the offence - hence the FPN system.

2. I wish that was true Pat, unfortunately in more and more cases it isn't.

 

I've ammended my question;

 

But what are we advocating here? Help people get off who are actually guilty and know it but are looking for a way to get off or help people who are innocent prove their innocence? Or what about people who have made a mistake but are guilty of an alleged offence? Should they be let off, given a rap on the knuckles or put before the court and have the book thrown at them? I would suggest that depends on your perspective?

[lamma]

Whoa. An FPN is offer to pay a penalty, it is not a conviction it is merely a Notice. People have the right to refuse the offer just as they do for any other offer made by the police (e.g. a voluntary interview or 'do you mind answering a few questions' etc) or one made by anyone else. Handing out an FPN is not proof of guilt, that is not proved on the street.

[chesham]

Whoa. An FPN is offer to pay a penalty, it is not a conviction it is merely a Notice. People have the right to refuse the offer just as they do for any other offer made by the police (e.g. a voluntary interview or 'do you mind answering a few questions' etc) or one made by anyone else. Handing out an FPN is not proof of guilt, that is not proved on the street.

 

Above is very true, it sounds like you were just stopped by an officer who chose to give a caution, many officers don't but some do purely to drive a point home or to ensure that they are following procedures correctly - if you get a really nice one, they will tell you that you are not under arrest but they will read you a caution. They should also explain that you do not have to accept the FPN, but you do have to physically accept it at the roadside, and on the back it will have instructions on how you can appeal it if you wish to, or accept it and pay the fine and let the matter go.

 

However, if you feel that you have been treated unfairly or improperly by a police officer, you have every right to make a complaint and have it looked into, and you have every right for it not to prejudice the FPN should you wish to accept or contest it. However, you will need to produce the facts, and use them if you wish to contest the FPN, which is separate from making a complaint about an officers conduct. However, if his conduct resulted in the incorrect issuing of it...well, it speaks for itself.

[TD27]

Whoa. An FPN is offer to pay a penalty, it is not a conviction it is merely a Notice. People have the right to refuse the offer just as they do for any other offer made by the police (e.g. a voluntary interview or 'do you mind answering a few questions' etc) or one made by anyone else. Handing out an FPN is not proof of guilt, that is not proved on the street.

 

Lamma, I'm not saying it is a conviction, my point was that the person themselves can determine their guilt and use the system to have the matter dealt with (if the offer is made) rather than go to court. Hence from the original point it's not just for the courts to decide. We can decide for ourselves too.