My rights as a supsect.......

sunama · 13 Aug 2011 at 15:22

Dr House said:
I think I have worked out what has happened here, OP where you walking like a german?

at 1.10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

This would explain everything and in particular why the BMW driver was so incensed.

Mark A · 13 Aug 2011 at 15:27

If he's a student, cant he get a solicitor provided for free?

If it was me i'd go in and see what they wanted. Then decide if I would need legal representation. If you decide you do you can just say so at any time and it'll be stopped.

Von Smallhausen · 13 Aug 2011 at 15:34

sunama said:
What I've noticed is that the Police will give every statement a sinister slant.

An example:
The truth: the defendant was walking along the street, reading a newspaper, and from time to time looked up to see where he was walking.

The Police's version: the defendant was walking along the street. From time to time, he was looking around him, in what appeared to be a nervous fashion, to check who was around him.

Which anyone in the legal trade will tell you would be pulled apart by a good defence lawyer during cross examination.

lunarwolf · 13 Aug 2011 at 15:38

Von Smallhausen said:
Which anyone in the legal trade will tell you would be pulled apart by a good defence lawyer during cross examination.

lol been watching much tele?

seriously there will only be interviews in this matter and i doubt if he goes to court the op will say anything aside than confirm his name, and his plea. the lawyer/barrister will then take it from there, depending if it's magistrates or crown court.

sunama · 13 Aug 2011 at 15:40

Von Smallhausen said:
Which anyone in the legal trade will tell you would be pulled apart by a good defence lawyer during cross examination.

By why should it come to this?
In your post, you clearly stated that Police would not do anything to pervert the course of justice. Now you are stating that the defendant should ask him defence team to pull the statement apart.

Strictly speaking, the Police should be providing facts and not be giving a sinister slant to those facts. In effect, by providing a sinister slant, they are perverting the course of justice, by making the defendant sound guilty of some wrong-doing. This is my big gripe with the Police.

Of course, it doesnt help when channel 4 make a documentary, in which some coppers are openly admitting that in their opinion everybody should be locked up and how some of them love to make arrests.

sunama · 13 Aug 2011 at 15:40

lunarwolf said:
lol been watching much tele?

We are just talking hypothetically...not really about this case, but in general.

Longbow · 13 Aug 2011 at 15:42

Mark A said:
If he's a student, cant he get a solicitor provided for free?

If it was me i'd go in and see what they wanted. Then decide if I would need legal representation. If you decide you do you can just say so at any time and it'll be stopped.

He will get a free solicitor if he's arrested and gets interviewed. No need to spend a £1000 on legal fee's for nothing more than a 'he says she says' case.

Efour · 13 Aug 2011 at 15:43

LiamC said:
murder him with pancakes.

THIS

platinum87 · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:06

sunama said:
Is there such a thing an informal chat/interview?
If they are taking notes or recording the interview, then anything you say can land you right in "it". It's always best to say nothing until you have a solicitor sitting in with you.

You always have the right to remain silent. NEVER ever forget this.

Remaining silent to me is an admission of guilt, or how it is interpreted. I dont think i would ever remain silent.

As for the OP, he did nothing wrong, tell the truth, act polite, have no fear or doubt.

sunama said:
Sorry, Von. But I've seen it first hand. The Police "twist" words. They won't change the facts but witness testimonies can be given a slant, in order to make someone sound guilty. Even an innocent action can made to sound sinister.

Regardless of what you say, my mind cannot be changed as I have seen it happen first hand. I was absolutely shocked when the guy involved in the incident I witnessed was charged with something quite serious. I honestly couldn't believe it.

At the end of the day, the OP has to take care of No.1 (ie. himself). If that means being defensive though-out the case, then so be it.

If the OP is innocent, he has every right to be defensive and trust only his own team (ie. himself and his own solicitor). Only an idiot would trust the Police who have already stated clearly that they are treating him as a suspect. I mean honestly, they can't make it any more clear than that.

I don't agree with this, i would trust the police, i would comply fully, be polite and passive.

plasmahal · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:27

Dr House said:
Don't worry too much, if the have anything on you they will arrest you if not they will just drop it.

If you do get arrested then get proper legal representation. There is no point wasting 150 quid per hour if nothing is going to come of it.

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

why did you not report the Hit and Run to the BTP instead of your local police station?

Also how did you manage to accidentally hit the car with your foot?

I reported it to the local police because it was my belief at the time that it was public road outside the station. I have since learned that is network rails property and therefore the jurisdiction of the BTP. That's another reason why i contacted them rather than wait for them to come and find me.

As I have said a few times, the car hit me on the crossing, I did not hit the car.....

[TW]Fox · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:31

A Zebra crossing on Network Rail property? Possible but unusual. Which station?

sunama · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:34

platinum87 said:
Remaining silent to me is an admission of guilt, or how it is interpreted. I dont think i would ever remain silent.

By law, remaining silent is not admission of guilt. In a Court of law, they won't convict you because you did not wish to answer questions during the interview. There may be any number of reasons as to why you did not want to say anything during the interview.

Once you have been cautioned and started spilling your guts...all your words will be used against you. There will be no going back after this. The caution clearly states: "anything you say will/may be used against you". The Police are telling you this in advance. The problem with most people is that they don't listen/understand the caution. The caution is VERY dangerous for a suspect, especially if he decides to spill his guts.

You are more likely to create a problem for yourself if you end up saying something...those words may get twisted and before you know it, they are being read out in Court, making you sound like a very sinister individual.

Also, when the CPS are looking to charge you, if they can only use your own statement to get a conviction (as is the case in many incidents), if you decide to remain silent, they will have a very difficult time charging you with the offence and an tougher time getting a conviction in Court. There simply won't be any evidence.

Also consider that by the time you get to Court, you have all the evidence which has been compiled against you...so you will effectively have inside information. During an interview, you will have absolutely no inside information and will be answering questions in a blind fashion. An intelligent Police officer can change his line of questioning according to what he wants you to say.

This is the very reason why a Police officer will do everything in his power to get you to talk. Of course, if there are witnesses to the case and "actual evidence", eg. a knife with your finger prints, found at the scene of the murder, then staying silent probably won't help you.

platinum87 said:
I don't agree with this, i would trust the police, i would comply fully, be polite and passive.

Have you had experience with the Police? If so, I would be interested to know in what capacity. I'm not having a go at you, I genuinely would like to know.

plasmahal · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:38

Longbow said:
He will get a free solicitor if he's arrested and gets interviewed. No need to spend a £1000 on legal fee's for nothing more than a 'he says she says' case.

This is what has me concerned. BTP officer said it's a voluntary interview but I have the right to have legal representation and then I think he said the duty solicitor. If I chose that option, we would have to go to a Police station not the BTP station for the interview to be taped.

I have been reading up, and technically they should caution me before an interview as well. All this makes me feel I need legal representation there. Also, as it's voluntary, it should be my right to say where the interview takes place, in this case, I don't think it's unreasonable to have this done at my local police station.

All I feel guilty about is not reporting the incident straight away to the correct police force. I thought I had done right.

Maximum Triceratops · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:43

Sorry but it sounds to me like you kicked his car when he failed to stop at the crossing for you and its backfired on you big time.

sunama · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:44

plasmahal said:
...not reporting the incident straight away to the correct police force.

Is this against the law?

I believe by law, you must report a road traffic accident to the Police, however, if the incident is a near-miss between a pedestrian and car, must this be reported? Perhaps a law man can answer this?

MrMoonX · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:45

the guy took photos and went to rousers a few days later, id be saying to the police what car, what incident, some nut took photos of me, no proof of who caused damage at all anyway

SexyGreyFox · 13 Aug 2011 at 16:52

plasmahal said:
As I was stepping forward my right foot was hit by the car that also swerveed onto the other side of the road to try to avoid us.

I'm surprised Fox hasn't picked up on this.
Which part of the car hit your foot?
What is the exact damage to his car?

Before you reply consider how far your foot is off the ground when walking.

Longbow · 13 Aug 2011 at 17:00

MrMoonX said:
the guy took photos and went to rousers a few days later, id be saying to the police what car, what incident, some nut took photos of me, no proof of who caused damage at all anyway

So you would lie? If they can prove you lied then your story will be discredited and the other person is more likely to be believed.

[TW]Fox;19822426 said:
Which station?

+1

IronWarrior · 13 Aug 2011 at 17:01

You should had never contacted them, really what was you thinking?

In the end, it's his word against you and the other friend, two words against one, nothing will happen.

dsb · 13 Aug 2011 at 17:01

Try get the witness to give you a witness statement and anyone else there that you recall being present, don't get a lawyer now you will be afforded the right to have one present in your interview and will be free for each interview you have to attend. I would call BTP and request that they recover any CCTV in or about the area, the cctv does not have to cover the area of the incident if its not there but show the manner in which the car was being driven, if this is not done you can bring it up in the interview, when you call always get the Officers name and collar number. (Council CCTV sometimes gets over written every 30 days)

I'm not a leagal advisor but i think your best course of action would to prepare a full statement, read that out on tape then go no comment to all other questions unless they will help in your defence. Also make sure you quote the crime ref number you were given for the incident you reported.

Not a nice situation to be in, but they have a duty to interview you either guilty or not.