Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Caution on arrest
In a recent conversation, I was told that the standard warning on arrest:
"You are under arrest for / on suspicion of .....You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something which you may later rely on in court. Anything you say may be used as evidence."
This apparently should be given, but is not compulsory. If this is true then what are the circumstances when it is not compulsory?
Thanks
"You are under arrest for / on suspicion of .....You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something which you may later rely on in court. Anything you say may be used as evidence."
This apparently should be given, but is not compulsory. If this is true then what are the circumstances when it is not compulsory?
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Andy008. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.The answer here lies in both common law and the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The person being arrested MUST be informed "As soon as is reasonably practicable" (Possible) that they are under arrest & what for. A judge, Viscount Simon, once stated that "It would not be desirable" to have any form of cautioning allowed.
PACE reiterates these conditions. In one case (Name escapes me) "I'm going to have to ask you to accompany me to the station" was deemed unsuitable for a lawful arrest (For a drink driver). Equally, another case shows that "You're nicked" and "You're under arrest" singularly are equally invalid.
It is as it is to prevent acquittals on technicalities, and to give suspects their rights. There are no right or wrong scenarios.
although I suspect this question was asked most out of curiosity, if you require, I can provide you with case names and PACE sections for referencing. My notes are elsewhere currently, my apologies...
PACE reiterates these conditions. In one case (Name escapes me) "I'm going to have to ask you to accompany me to the station" was deemed unsuitable for a lawful arrest (For a drink driver). Equally, another case shows that "You're nicked" and "You're under arrest" singularly are equally invalid.
It is as it is to prevent acquittals on technicalities, and to give suspects their rights. There are no right or wrong scenarios.
although I suspect this question was asked most out of curiosity, if you require, I can provide you with case names and PACE sections for referencing. My notes are elsewhere currently, my apologies...
It may be that the discussion was about prescribed wording.
Although the caution should be given, the exact wording is not required - as long as the meaning of the caution is relayed then it is legally acceptable.
In America (I believe) the wording has to be given exactly.
Personnaly I think we've got the better system - it allows for explanation to poeple who don't understand the formal wording (eg 10 year olds, people with learning difficulties and people who don't speak english fluently).
Although the caution should be given, the exact wording is not required - as long as the meaning of the caution is relayed then it is legally acceptable.
In America (I believe) the wording has to be given exactly.
Personnaly I think we've got the better system - it allows for explanation to poeple who don't understand the formal wording (eg 10 year olds, people with learning difficulties and people who don't speak english fluently).
If you could imagine a drunken animal on a Friday night at 3am fighting with the Police, then you can understand how the Caution or certainly the full caution does not quite register with these individuals. Or in fact is given. As long as the person is informed of the arrest and cautioned as soon as practicable then the officers are acting lawfully