Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5052

Possibly - 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 is incapable of error we are stuck with what we are stuck with!

This is becoming somewhat pedantic but you have to admit that there will be occasions when it is quite obvious and clear that an offence has been committed? If a complete stranger walks up to you in the street and shoots you in the knee-cap - do you buttume that he is innocent of any offence until a jury finds him guilty? If a pbutting policeman sees you being shot in the knee-cap do you expect him to say, "Well yes, I saw the shooting, but every man is innocent until proven guilty and therefore I cannot do anything because he is innocent." ?

You've been watching too many American cop programmes. The UK formal caution makes no mention of the right to a lawyer - purely the right to remain silent. The purpose of the caution is to advise the alleged offender that anything he might say could be used against him and therefore he should watch what he says. But this brings me back to the point in question - if the police officer has no interest in what the offender says (because he has sufficient evidence without verbals) then it doesn't matter - because no matter what the alleged offender says - it's not going to be used against him. You seem to have difficulty grasping this fact.

Only if they remain silent when questioned about the offence.

No, not in the UK. If arrested they are asked if they want anyone notifying of their presence at the police station - and this notification can include a solicitor if they wish. At the scene a police officer is enbreastled to question anyone he feels may have information about the commission of a crime. The moment he suspects that someone may have committed an offence he must caution them - *IF* he intends to ask further questions and use the answers in evidence.

None really - and in 99.9% of cases that is precisely what happens. I'm merely pointing out that people are wrong if they believe that all suspects *must* be cautioned.

I agree - see above.

There isn't any harm. I've only not given a caution on a couple of occasions - usually where the offender has launched straight into a tirade of abuse.

In some instances it certainly is pointless.

And it rarely does.

There could be other reasons why people remain silent that are

In that case the offender can clearly explain just why he is refusing to answer. The fact is that the laws on evidence were written many moons ago when many of the populace were illiterate and required great protection. These days things have swung too far the other way. You want to sit in on an interview where a 12 year old scouse villain is spouting 'no comment', 'no comment' to every question he's asked. No national interest there - simply a wish to avoid conviction. I welcome the opportunity for the prosecution to be able to comment upon such behaviour.

Well you might look at it that way but it's not strictly true. You can certainly plead not guilty to a Gatso summons and the evidence will be heard in court. You will explain to the magistrates why you consider that you were not speeding - and the prosecution will produce the evidence provided by the Gatso - ie speed read out and two photographs showing the position and timing of your car on the road markings. The magistrates will consider both sides - as they would with a speeding allegation made by a police officer and make their decision. The only reason you consider it to be 'guilty until proven innocent' is that unlike with a police officer you cannot allege that a mistake has been made. The camera produces its' own corroboration and is invariably right.

Kev