Police bullyied me into talking while under caution

[vinnychoff]

I was stopped by a traffic cop and felt he abused his powers. he did not like to be challenged or have anything said against his decision. he raised his voice aggressively and approached if anything was said in response. in the end i felt i could not say anything.

when he asked me if i wanted to say anything and that he had to caution me as it could be used against me in court.

i was quiet. i did not want to add anything...

he then asked me for my license etc then at the end he added my comments to the pcn which i had not given consent. i felt if i said anything it would have made the situation worst. he would have made up something else to prosecute me. the comments that he quoted i am not worried about but its more the fact that he abused his powers and acted a bully with any type of question he added a threat of prosecution.

i am contesting the tyre that he said was low but want to know if it will make it worse for me if i make a formal complaint

what law is it that they follow on the side of the road for cautioning? can i add this to my pcn 117

thanks

[jasmin2008]

If cautioned you are entitled to see a solicitor before making any comment or statement. You are also entitled to read PACE.

[vinnychoff]

thanks...it seems i have some reading to do...

[JonCris]

I think what Janice is alluding to is that you are entitled to read PACE as soon as your cautioned & if the officer doesn't have one he has to have one sent to the scene so you can & it's a very long book;)

[vinnychoff]

i was thinking of reading what me rights were at the time to see what he should have done....or as to what i can do as he tricked me into making a statement and i felt bullied that if i questioned him it would of made the situation worse....

i hope it does not happen again but i wonder if i would have asked him for pace what he would have done or how he would of responded then....

[green_and_mean]

i was thinking of reading what me rights were at the time to see what he should have done....or as to what i can do as he tricked me into making a statement and i felt bullied that if i questioned him it would of made the situation worse....

i hope it does not happen again but i wonder if i would have asked him for pace what he would have done or how he would of responded then....

 

He would have provided a copy for you to read giving him plenty of time to go over your car from top to bottom looking for every violation of the construction and use regs.

[JonCris]

Hardly they don't carry a copy of PACE

[green_and_mean]

Hardly they don't carry a copy of PACE

 

They will arrange for one to be fetched.

[nero12]

They will arrange for one to be fetched.

What was the apparent problem with the tyre, did the officer take tread depth or tyre pressure measurements, were they so noted.

 

were there any witnesses to support your allegation of bullying?

 

If the policeman acted unprofessionally and abused his position this should be reported.

Im not taking sides here but the police have a duty to remain impartial and they do not have the right to abuse members of the public for whatever reason.

You are innocent until proven guilty, even in the event of an officer issuing a fixed penalty

[jasmin2008]

There is no obligation to accept a FPN.

[sameagle]

Ultimately, and this should not be undertaken lightly, you can put in an official complaint against the officer.

 

I did, some number of years ago.

 

It then transpired that I wasn't the first person who felt that he had been pushed too far - he was suspended forthwith, and resigned, shortly afterwards.

 

I was later told that it was to the relief of most of his fellow officers.

 

Sam

[vinnychoff]

thats the way i feel....if he was like that to me. how would he treat others. is he the same all the time or was it a one off..police should be respected not feared...

[katedog]

Re the caution....

 

PC plod is obliged to caution you at the roadsdie if he intends to use your reply as part of his evidence. Basicaly this is your opportunity to put forward your defence and if he wants to use that reply he had to let you know that hence the caution.

 

If he intends to interview you under caution, lets say you put forward mitigation such as "well i checked the tyre when i set out and it was fine there must be a defect in the tyre" and he wants to ask you some questions, when did you set off? how far have you come? he then has to tell you that you are entitled to legal advice and you are free to leave at any time.

 

The caution sounds very scarry because you only ever see it on the BILL when people are arrested. In fact its there to protect you.

 

As for the compliant if your not happy go and complain, but it will have little or no bearing on where the FPN goes.

[nero12]

Re the caution....

 

PC plod is obliged to caution you at the roadsdie if he intends to use your reply as part of his evidence. Basicaly this is your opportunity to put forward your defence and if he wants to use that reply he had to let you know that hence the caution.

 

If he intends to interview you under caution, lets say you put forward mitigation such as "well i checked the tyre when i set out and it was fine there must be a defect in the tyre" and he wants to ask you some questions, when did you set off? how far have you come? he then has to tell you that you are entitled to legal advice and you are free to leave at any time.

 

The caution sounds very scarry because you only ever see it on the BILL when people are arrested. In fact its there to protect you.

 

As for the compliant if your not happy go and complain, but it will have little or no bearing on where the FPN goes.

 

Yes I agree, if the policeman acted like a tit it will have no bearing on the offence.

 

The two are seperate issues.

[TD27]

I was stopped by a traffic cop and felt he abused his powers. he did not like to be challenged or have anything said against his decision. he raised his voice aggressively and approached if anything was said in response. in the end i felt i could not say anything.

when he asked me if i wanted to say anything and that he had to caution me as it could be used against me in court.

i was quiet. i did not want to add anything...

he then asked me for my license etc then at the end he added my comments to the pcn which i had not given consent. i felt if i said anything it would have made the situation worst. he would have made up something else to prosecute me. the comments that he quoted i am not worried about but its more the fact that he abused his powers and acted a bully with any type of question he added a threat of prosecution.

i am contesting the tyre that he said was low but want to know if it will make it worse for me if i make a formal complaint

what law is it that they follow on the side of the road for cautioning? can i add this to my pcn 117

thanks

 

As has been mentioned here your reply after caution is your opportunity to state your legitimate case, and in doing so demonstrates to the court that you haven't changed your story and that your not making up a defence when you've had months to think about it. ie; 'but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court'.

 

Its not a way to trick you into admitting something. It does what it says on the tin really.

 

If you don't want to add anything then you can say so. Or just that you understand, or say nothing as you did. Its your choice.

 

As for adding the comments to the FPN, there is a box which has a segment for reply after caution. He doesn't need your permission to add those because you were cautioned.

 

How would it make the situation worse? If you're driving a vehicle with other, as yet undetected offences on it then he may look even closer, but it sounds like he'd already examined it by this stage.

 

As for making something up I would be mightily surprised at any officer effectively perverting the course of justice for a traffic job (or anything else for that matter). Livelyhood, pension, criminal record, prison? With CCTV everywhere and members of the public recording to protect themselves I very much doubt it. Not impossible though, but highly improbable.

 

As was mentioned any complaint you have will have no influence of the case itself.

[vinnychoff]

i guess it is the way he conducted did not give me any confidence in being treated fairly. that if he took to put comments down that i did not agree to. that they could be distorted. that in his statement he would use these in his favor in court.

in court who will they trust/believe?

a policeman?

a member of the public?

[TD27]

i guess it is the way he conducted did not give me any confidence in being treated fairly. that if he took to put comments down that i did not agree to. that they could be distorted. that in his statement he would use these in his favor in court.

in court who will they trust/believe?

a policeman?

a member of the public?

 

That's fair comment. I guess the question that springs to mind is how did you behave towards the officer? Did you give him any reason to believe you might not be entirely truthfull? Were you in any way difficult with him? Behaviour breeds behaviour.

 

He can write down and present in court whatever you said, regardless of whether you agree to it or not. As for being distorted, in what way?

 

I have to say most officers report the facts of the case to the courts and the courts decide. I'm not sure it will be such a big deal to him whether the result is in his favour or not. It's an occupational hazard that some people who are bang to rights reach court and are acquitted either on technicalities or because the police didn't present the case properly or thoroughly leaving an element of doubt.

 

It's the evidence of the tyre itself that will make or break the case. If its below 1.6mm within the central three quarters of the circumference, or you have ply and cord exposed, or bulges or tears then there's little else to be said. Thats the offence.

 

There may be mittigation, that doesn't absolve you of the offence, it merely explains to the court why it may have happened or circumstances around the offence that may have lead to it occuring that you feel should be taken into account.

 

For example. Car drives through red light. - Offence

 

Mittigation - Was moving through red light to allow ambulance on emergency call to safely negotiate junction.

 

The driver has still committed the offence and is still guilty of it. The court can decide what punishment, if any to impose.

 

As for who to believe. Whoever presents the most convincing case. Trust me when I tell you thats not necessarily the police.

 

Just don't confuse being annoyed at the copper with the alledged offence. If he's right about the tyre then he's right. You can still complain, but don't mix them up or it could get expensive in court for both pounds and points!

 

I presume you've been issued an endorsable fpn?

[vinnychoff]

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

[JonCris]

Under NO circumstances make any kind of statement UNTIL you have legal representation 95% of all convictions rest on what the defendant has said prior to representation

[crem]

It's the evidence of the tyre itself that will make or break the case. If its below 1.6mm within the central three quarters of the circumference, or you have ply and cord exposed, or bulges or tears then there's little else to be said. Thats the offence.

 

1.6mm of tread applies to a car tyre. This was a motorbike tyre which only requires 1mm of tread to be legal.

[katedog]

Under NO circumstances make any kind of statement UNTIL you have legal representation 95% of all convictions rest on what the defendant has said prior to representation

 

 

Where have you got your statistic from?

[lamma]

Whatever the stats JonCris is right to give that advice.

[wheelergeezer]

1.6mm of tread applies to a car tyre. This was a motorbike tyre which only requires 1mm of tread to be legal.

 

Correct.

[katedog]

Whatever the stats JonCris is right to give that advice.

 

 

I am new to these forums, so i took the time to read the advice on posting and amongst other things it says

 

Above all else, use your common sense, be respectful and reasonable to people and companies.

 

You cant just go around saying things like the above unless you can substantiate them.

 

No I'm not a cop and I'm not married to one.

 

I just think these formus have such a lot to offer everybody, but they can only work if people talk from an informed position, ie facts of law, personal experience or easily supported research (web pages publications tv shows), other wise I could just post drivel get platinum status and new comers would think i knew what i was talking about! (thats not directed at anyone specific)

 

I dont thinks Jon cris is corrct to give the advice.

 

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention now something which you later rely on in court".

 

What that is saying is now is your chance to give your side of the story. Right now! Not in six months when you've had chance to think about it, talked to CAG and found a stated case that will give you an out. But right now! If you dont tell me something now then the judge will think twice about anything you say in court, these peolple arent stupid. They will think just as above and not believe a word you say. If you have genuine excuse, reason or mitigation then tell the cop right there and then. Make sure he records it in his book or on the ticket and let the judge decide whos right or wrong. Thats my advice.

 

We're not talking murder here we're talking baldy tyres and 42mph in a thirty.

 

(Working on the principal that we are all decent law abiding citizens I would add,) we've all passed a test to drive we all know the content of the highway code (or we should and there have been some changes to it since a lot of you last read it so have another look) we shouild all know the basic law concerning cars on the road (I'll have to get a new tyre/bulb/wipers before i take the car for a MoT no way i'm paying a re test fee, no but you'll risk £6o and three points for the other 364 days of the year)

Edited July 14, 2009 by katedog

[lamma]

"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.