Police Authority Question

Von Smallhausen · 5 Apr 2011 at 03:08

I have given you my answer for the first scenario you gave.

For the second one ...... slight tangent but you make a better witness than a possible victim. You are obviously an intelligent bloke and can figure that one out.

trisp · 5 Apr 2011 at 03:12

Castiel said:
First of all, Call the Police to verify that they called you for the interview.

If they did, then arrange for a Solicitor to attend with you, as you will likely be interviewed under caution.

If there was an abusive letter, and the recipient called the Police then they are not going to simply believe it wasn't you just because you say so. You will be arrested when you go to the Station and then interviewed under caution, probably they will take a DNA swab, photo and fingerprints prior to the interview.

Unfortunately you could potentially be in some trouble, I suggest you get proper legal counsel and verify with the Police Station, not via the number the alleged WPC gave you that they do indeed require you to give yourself up to custody.

It does seem rather strange that they called you, rather than seeing you personally.

This^^

bhavv · 5 Apr 2011 at 03:53

Wow! good thing I watched that video otherwise I wouldnt stop talking to cops if I ever got arrested.

Me talking is not a good thing

.

Energize · 5 Apr 2011 at 04:35

Von Smallhausen said:
I have given you my answer for the first scenario you gave.

Under what legislation though, if it is indeed later established that the police officer was committing a crime?

Jaap74 · 5 Apr 2011 at 05:09

When is the OP posting the letter for us ? ;-)

Chris [BEANS] · 5 Apr 2011 at 06:44

Energize said:
Does everyone have such a short attention span these days? It's a very informative video, I suggest everyone watches it.

A video about not talking to the police is informative? Sounds like bad advise to me.

Nitefly said:
At college I was being taught recently how to act at a police station when representing an arrested client.

It seemed to imply the majority of the time the police will have nothing so in those circumstances you should advise 'no comment', even if they ask what your name is in an interview. If you give them your name then give a no comment, it allows the court to infer you are decieving the police

Another example of people making stuff up and stating it as fact.

If you chose to remain silent or to go 'no comment', or indeed make funny noises in response to questions, and the matter were to later go to court, then a Magistrate, Judge, or Jury can draw an inference from your silence.
It is because you have been given the right to legal advise and you have been given an opportunity to answer questions on the matter and you have chosen not to do so.

Why wouldn't a jury assume you have something to hide if you have refused to answer the questions the police put to you?

EDIT: The stuff about not giving your name is just ludicrous. If you are being interviewed then the police have your fingerprints and DNA, if you have been arrested before they now know for a fact who you are. If you have not been arrested before and refuse all details then you can be remanded until the conclusion of the investigation. The police can't bail you if they don't know who you are and where you live.

Richie · 5 Apr 2011 at 06:57

Chris [BEANS];18830955 said:
EDIT: The stuff about not giving your name is just ludicrous. If you are being interviewed then the police have your fingerprints and DNA, if you have been arrested before they now know for a fact who you are. If you have not been arrested before and refuse all details then you can be remanded until the conclusion of the investigation. The police can't bail you if they don't know who you are and where you live.

It is a criminal offence (in Scotland anyway) to not provide the following information if required to by a cop under s.13 and s.14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995:

Name
DOB
Address
Place of Birth
Nationality.

So saying "no comment" or refusing to answer these 5 basic questions can result in you being arrested, charged and convicted of a crime.

Energize · 5 Apr 2011 at 07:31

Chris [BEANS];18830955 said:
A video about not talking to the police is informative? Sounds like bad advise to me.

You're not an expert lawyer & supreme court judge with decades of experience though.

Von Smallhausen · 5 Apr 2011 at 07:58

Energize said:
Under what legislation though, if it is indeed later established that the police officer was committing a crime?

Anyone can arrest someone they reasonably suspect of committing a crime, sec 24 of PACE being the legislation. Police officers also have powers of arrest under the same section.

As I said before, an unlawful search is not neccessarily a crime and the scenario you gave suggests a breach of PACE rather than a criminal act.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Apr 2011 at 08:20

Richie said:
Burnsy is a Special Constable. Granted he has the same powers but, like any part-time role, I would rate the information given from a full time cop over a Special given they do the job every day.....

This is by no means a slate again Specials.

Perhaps VS can add his info on the right to force entry....

Indeed, I'll bow to VS' great experience any day. He's an old man now, he like sharing war stories.

In my defence, I did know what VS mentioned however, my point was that its common for people to think that police officers need a warrant for any entry into a dwelling, which isnt true as VS has pointed out. That, and typing out half of PACE on a phone would deserve a medal.

Dr House · 5 Apr 2011 at 08:32

Amp34 said:

This is really worth watching.

slylittlefox · 5 Apr 2011 at 08:53

lol at all the typical OcUK armchair experts

What really bugs me is the fact that if you get arrested, even if you're later proven to have absolutely nothing to do with the crime, it's on your record. I take it that'd show up with a CRB check? If so that stinks.

Castiel · 5 Apr 2011 at 08:56

slylittlefox said:
lol at all the typical OcUK armchair experts

What really bugs me is the fact that if you get arrested, even if you're later proven to have absolutely nothing to do with the crime, it's on your record. I take it that'd show up with a CRB check? If so that stinks.

Being arrested or even charged doesn't show up on a CRB check, only convictions and cautions show up, along with information the Chief Constable might find relevant. (such as accusations of paedophilia in an application from a Nursery School for example)

Burnsy2023 · 5 Apr 2011 at 09:02

Castiel said:
Being arrested or even charged doesn't show up on a CRB check, only convictions and cautions show up, along with information the Chief Constable might find relevant. (such as accusations of paedophilia in an application from a Nursery School for example)

True, although you will still have fingerprints and DNA taken which will stay on record.

edscdk · 5 Apr 2011 at 09:03

rosso5792 said:
just go to the interview, tell them the story and be done with it. if you've done nothing wrong then there is nothing to worry about.

correction,

if they think you have done nothing wrong, and they are under no preassure to up conviction stats you are ok"

imagine if they do a DNA swab and the lab messes up OP will get arrested and possibly go to court, and possibly even convicted...

(saw a docu where a lab even when told they were being tested fluffed a DNA test, then fluffed the retest, 2x giving a positive result then it should have been neg)

grumpysculler · 5 Apr 2011 at 09:03

Castiel said:
Being arrested or even charged doesn't show up on a CRB check, only convictions and cautions show up, along with information the Chief Constable might find relevant. (such as accusations of paedophilia in an application from a Nursery School for example)

Being arrested won't automatically show up, but a Chief Constable could decide that the arrests constitute 'relevant information'. Only on an Enhanced Disclosure or PVG Scheme Record though.

Castiel · 5 Apr 2011 at 09:54

Burnsy2023 said:
True, although you will still have fingerprints and DNA taken which will stay on record.

Quite. Although there is some movement to limit the time DNA etc can be kept and the rights of innocent individuals to have that information destroyed.

grumpysculler said:
Being arrested won't automatically show up, but a Chief Constable could decide that the arrests constitute 'relevant information'. Only on an Enhanced Disclosure or PVG Scheme Record though.

I think I said that.

Nitefly · 5 Apr 2011 at 12:01

Chris [BEANS];18830955 said:
If you chose to remain silent or to go 'no comment', or indeed make funny noises in response to questions, and the matter were to later go to court, then a Magistrate, Judge, or Jury can draw an inference from your silence.

Yep, that's what I said. The inference will be a negative one.

Why wouldn't a jury assume you have something to hide if you have refused to answer the questions the police put to you?

EDIT: The stuff about not giving your name is just ludicrous. If you are being interviewed then the police have your fingerprints and DNA, if you have been arrested before they now know for a fact who you are. If you have not been arrested before and refuse all details then you can be remanded until the conclusion of the investigation. The police can't bail you if they don't know who you are and where you live.

They will know your name anyway before the interview. They can ask you for your name in the interview and if you answer that, but then stay silence to other questions, a negtative influence can be drawn.

Selective Silence said:
A solicitor should not advise a client to answer some of the questions put by the police but not others. Doing this comes across very badly at trial when the interview transcript is read out or the recording of the interview is played to the court. By answering some questions but not others, it will appear to the magistrates or the jury that the defendant has something to hide and is refusing to reply to those difficult questions for which he has no satisfactory answer.

And yes, giving your name in an interviewing and then remaining silent or answering no comment can be viewed negatively in court, because I was taught this by a ex-high court judge (who's husband is in charge of a police station) that this is not an uncommon police tactic and she has had to direct the jury on this issue before.

So yeah... not made up

Von Smallhausen · 5 Apr 2011 at 13:35

Burnsy2023 said:
Indeed, I'll bow to VS' great experience any day. He's an old man now, he like sharing war stories.

In my defence, I did know what VS mentioned however, my point was that its common for people to think that police officers need a warrant for any entry into a dwelling, which isnt true as VS has pointed out. That, and typing out half of PACE on a phone would deserve a medal.

Cheeky get. Old ?

I am more hurt than when I was booted in the shin by an elderly lady at a care home some years back.

Jimz · 5 Apr 2011 at 13:58

You didnt write that letter so that police women cant make you do anything at all.

This is such Hype its insane