Summoning to court for mobile use while driving

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

I guess the reason I ask them to explain it is because it's often the first opportunity I have to assess them. Tbh, they don't often explain the caution very well, even the solicitor I interviewed recently.
I usually explain that the overriding principle is that they don't have to say anything. I then explain that they need to be aware that if they don't answer my questions, a jury or magistrate may wonder why an answer they give at court wasn't given in interview.

So at last, something you're not an expert at. Yet you assume you're so much better than everyone else.

Surely you've been trained on the delivery and explinaton of the caution, yet you don't fully have a grasp of it yourself.

I do hope you never interview for a Section 1 as it would appear your force is not fully complying with the Road Death Investigation Manual.

brat

matttye wrote: »

"This means that if you say something in court that you could reasonably have been expected to mention during interview, and you failed to mention those facts in interview when you had the chance, then the court may decide not to believe you."

It could be that for some, an explanation like this is almost as unwieldy as the caution wording itself. A simple explanation that goes hand in hand with the words of the caution is what works for me.

Spicy_McHaggis wrote:

I do hope you never interview for a Section 1 as it would appear your force is not fully complying with the Road Death Investigation Manual.

I'm not tier 3 trained, so I don't normally do S1 interviews unaccompanied, I usually provide the scene fact and evidence for the interviewers.

But my non-compliance would take what form exactly?

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

I'm not tier 3 trained, so I don't normally do S1 interviews unaccompanied, I usually provide the scene fact and evidence for the interviewers.

But my non-compliance would take what form exactly?

You shouldn't be doing the unaccompanied at all.

brat wrote: »

I'm sure I'd pitch it right for you...

You've now just said your not trained well enough.

matttye

brat wrote: »

It could be that for some, an explanation like this is almost as unwieldy as the caution wording itself. A simple explanation that goes hand in hand with the words of the caution is what works for me.


I'm not tier 3 trained, so I don't normally do S1 interviews unaccompanied, I usually provide the scene fact and evidence for the interviewers.

But my non-compliance would take what form exactly?

I appreciate what you're saying but it is not the non-answering of questions that can create an inference it's the non-mentioning of facts. There is a distinct difference.

If you ask any questions that the suspect has already provided facts in relation to and the suspect doesn't answer your question then no inference can be drawn.

A suspect can provide a prepared statement in written or spoken form and then answer no questions, and an inference can only be drawn in relation to facts the suspect failed to mention that they could reasonably have been expected to.

I understand that a failure to mention fact is often linked to a failure to answer a question but there's a distinct difference between the two.

You see this misunderstanding from time to time when an officer, having been handed a prepared statement, then proceeds to ask a bunch of questions already answered by the prepared statement. This is because there is a misunderstanding that it is a failure to answer questions that leads to an inference - it's not.

brat

matttye wrote: »

I understand that a failure to mention fact is often linked to a failure to answer a question but there's a distinct difference between the two.

You see this misunderstanding from time to time when an officer, having been handed a prepared statement, then proceeds to ask a bunch of questions already answered by the prepared statement. This is because there is a misunderstanding that it is a failure to answer questions that leads to an inference - it's not.

I get the distinction, but it's catered for in the questions asked.

*Vikki*

Thffffddffdd

Happychappy

But as a PCSO, what do you really wannabe !