Very obviously a police officer has to make a decision as to whether or not someone has committed an offence - you don't report or arrest someone you believe to be innocent do you? Having said that, the offender may not agree and has the right to plead his case before magistrates or judge.
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5052Possibly - but what are you suggesting? We are all human and there have to be criminal acts and there have to be police officers. Until a real 'Robo cop' comes along that...
No indeed - and I have never suggested otherwise.
What rights are we talking about? The formal caution is intended purely to advise someone that they do not have to say anything but that anything they do say may be used in evidence. There is no need to advise someone of this if you have no interest in what they have to say and do not intend to use anything they say in evidence. What is the problem with this?
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5051courts not agree Or the hypothetical police officer could be mistaken, or acting maliciously. So his her decision on the whole "committed an offence" could be either quite subjective, or...
See above. It is very much dependent upon the circumstances but in simple speeding offences, for example, why do you need to inform them of their right to silence when you have no intention of using anything they say even if they do speak? It's pointless!
and surely there should be nothing punitive about remaining
There are very clear differences of opinion on this one and it was the gov't who decided to change the position. Personally I strongly believe that innocent parties are only to willing and ready to explain their innocence and it is only the guilty who want to keep their mouth's shut.
Kev
