The British Caution

Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

Can any Brit explain the caution British police use especially the part about fail to mention....

You do not have to say anything, but if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court, anything you do say will be given in evidence.”

Comments

Not familiar to me in

Not familiar to me in Canadian or American usage, but sounds like a variation on the Miranda principle. It sounds as if you want to use something in your defense in court, you'd better mention it to the initial investigators. If you don't (and mention it in court), they'll then bring out everything else you said. Sort of a "What you say won't be used in court unless you haven't been fully forthcoming"


I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.

Caution

I have read the newer caution and I understand it better I think but some of the cautions in earlier lit cornfuse the hell out of me. I can just imagine some people saying "what did you say?"

Paula

Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.

The Coda
Chapterhouse: Dune

The British Caution

Maybe they are trying to keep from looking like plods, or plain lazy about looking for evidence.

    Stanman
May Your Light Forever Shine

Raise a Defence Now or you may have it attacked.

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"

That appears to be the Warning.

I am not a UK attorney, but this is what I guess it could mean.

You are arrested for doing something, but have an alibi or explanation for your act, (far-fetched but) your identical twin brother actually did it. When yor arrested and a witness points you out, you do not say tell the police, that your twin brother did it. Now at trial say 6 month to a year later,you tell the court or use as a defence that your twin brother did it. The prosecutor can attack your credibility for not raising it earlier. Perhaps (I do not know UK Criminal Procedure) you might not even be able to raise that defence at trial having waived it at the time of first questioning, or the Judge may direct the jury to ignore the defencd or give it no weight.

Perhaps in the Kaylee Anthony case, a warning like that given to the mother when she was arrested, would have denied her some of her defence.

Rami

RAMI

The exact words

You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?

Per Wikipdia, in England & Wales ...

Older version:
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Newer version:
"You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you. If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence."

"Further the invoking of that right does not prohibit officers from asking further questions."

A second Wikipeida article:
England and Wales
Main article: Right to silence in England and Wales

The right to silence has a long history in England and Wales, first having been codified in the Judges' Rules in 1912. A defendant in a criminal trial has a choice whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Further, there is no general duty to assist the police with their inquiries.

At common law, and particularly following the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 under Code C adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused:

* fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
* fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
* fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
* fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.[6] Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence.[7]

This does not apply to investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, where there is no right to silence, nor in relation to terrorism.

Under Section 49[8] and Section 53[9] of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), it is an offence to fail to disclose when requested the key to encrypted data (with a penalty of two years in prison).

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

Holly

i prefer

The standard american version.

"Look punk. You have the right to a f**kin attorney. Although he may be bought. You have the right to seek legal council even though they will not believe you. You have the right to remain silent, please do so we can beat the hell out of you. Anything you say can and probably wont be used against you if we happen to misplace your evidence. Do you understand these rights?

Thank you have a nice day. Fucking speeders."

Wikipaedia is wrong in this case

The caution is now as I set it out just above your reply. I copied it from the aide memoire (officially issued) that I use. Before the particular Criminal Justice Act that brought it in, there were a number of cautions. One applied (and still applies) to witness statements (I believe called affidavits over the water). The other two were the product of Judges' Rules, and were known as Rule II and Rule III cautions. Rule II for suspicion, Rule III for formal interview.

You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you do say may be put into writing and given in evidence.

For Rule III: You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you do say will be put into writing and may be given in evidence.

There are also Special Warnings, to be given in interview, where the 'fail to mention' bit is stressed.

It seems a lot like a sort of wobbly way

It seems a lot like a sort of wobbly way to codify something like our American 5th amendment(The right to not give self-incriminating testimony) rights, maybe defining them a bit more precisely, but still basically in a fair manner.

I can't say I disapprove, but it does seem a bit complex really. I'm fairly sure your average idiot being jacked up for something stupid wouldn't have a clue...

Battery.jpg

Protest

I actually marched in a demo against the changes, for there are some serious implications that come from the assumption that 'if you have nothing to hide...'

So many people here understand the need for stealth, the possible consequences of the wrong people discovering their particular secrets, so let me do a what-if: a man is interviewed over a burglary. He has an alibi, for he was having sex with his sister or mother in law. He takes the fall for the crime rather than lose his family.

Or, perhaps worse in this lovely world, he was in bed with his brother in law at the time. There are all sorts of reasons I like the law, for professional reasons, but there is far more cause for me to dislike it.

plead the 5th

I think its a way of saying to "plead the fifth" so to speak, makes you look guilty. I personally think it would be easier to manage having an embarrassing secret said in private to a police officer or a detective, than risk it getting said secret dragged out in public during a trial.

-edit I think I worded this a little too harsh the first time.

"we can turn it all around, because it's not too late, it's NEVER too late" -(never too late, Three Days Grace)