Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5056And then you would be required to offer evidence to show that it was elsewhere. i.e. You have to prove your innocence. What is there is...
In some circumstances - absolutely.
And they don't. But a police officer must make a decision, prior to reporting or arresting whether he believes an offender is guilty of an offence. I agree it is up to a court to make the final decision.
We are becoming very tangled up here - and I don't think that we really disagree. What I am saying is that a) an officer must make a decision at some point as to whether or not someone has committed an offence. b) the officer can decide how much evidence he believes he requires to prove the offence. If he believes that the evidence he has already ambutted (eg evidence from a hand-held speed camera) then he does not need to question the alleged offender about any other matters. If he does not need to do that then he does not need to caution the alleged offender.
All of the above is agreed and accepted, although in the paragraph above I would just say that a police officer, prior to reporting or arresting, *has* to make a personal judgement as to whether he believes a person is guilty.
Not at all - merely that uk police officers do not have to advise offenders of those rights.
*Only* if they remain silent when questioned.
Again - not at all. It is for the offender's benefit to avoid self-incrimination (although I personally disagree that such a right should exist). So long as the actions of the police officer do not infringe upon those rights then there is no problem.
It hasn't all gone - although, quite rightly in my view because it was being abused, the right to silence has been modified to the extent that the prosecution can now comment upon it.
Indeed - although they are informed that by exercising that right they may compromise their case.
No - merely that uk officers are not required to advise an alleged offender of those rights. (At least not at the scene)
It *is* a requirement if the officer intends to use anything they say in evidence against them. It is *not* a requirement if he doesn't.
Ask the law-makers!
Not really. It's not evidence of the offence - and I'd already got sufficient evidence for a conviction.
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5059purely use when Perhaps the accused didn't want to answer without legal representation - you said "scene" after all. Perhaps the accused didn't want to say anything...
No it's not . I fully recognise that the caution is mainly for the benefit of the offender. Let's use a simple analogy. I am stood at the top of a path that leads to a dangerous rope bridge and I have the job of warning people that the rope bridge is dangerous. Do I need to warn every single person that pbuttes me that the bridge is dangerous? No, of course not, I only need to warn those who are obviously about to attempt a crossing. Now it wouldn't do any *harm* to warn every single person - but it would be a pointless exercise if they have no intention of crossing the bridge.
Because today's sophisticated criminals are abusing the right to silence and avoiding conviction thereby. I know there are differences of opinion. I don't happen to share the concern and, as I've already stated, I don't even believe in the right to avoid self-incrimination. If someone is guilty then they should be found guilty - not permitted to escape justice because of some simple-minded concept of 'fair-play'. I see no reason why should a concept should increase the risk of innocents being convicted. In fact, the easier it is to convict the guilty - the less chance there is of innocent parties becoming suspects.
Well, again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. My personal view is that the right to silence, put forward as a protector of the innocent, achieved just the opposite effect by enabling far too many guilty people to escape justice. You are not protecting the innocent by allowing serious criminals to walk free.
Again - we'll just have to agree to disagree!
I agree with that - but I believe that the modifications to the law that we have seen will increase the likelihood of guilty men being convicted *without* a consequent increase in the number of innocent people being convicted. The law change has now been in effect for a number of years and I don't see a mbutt clamour from lawyers for a return. If there was any evidence of an increase in 'innocent convictions' - then there would be such a clamour!
I've given my views on the Gatso situation several times in previous posts and they haven't changed. I disagree that admitting you were the driver at the time the offence was committed is the same as admitting guilt of the offence. I *do* accept that in practice, because of the infallibility of Gatso evidence, this is invariably the outcome - but that is a product of the excellent evidential value of the Gatso!
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5055Agreed. And if it was not your car then you have the opportunity of explaining where else your car was at the time of the offence. Here we are...
Kev
