Police Vs Cyclist

Guest101

Tilt wrote: »

Don't they tell you that bit AFTER you've been arrested? Surely by not giving the officer his details so that he can be 'dealt with' is obstructing the officer in performing his duty to issue the FPN or report the cyclist for the offence? As such the only option would be to arrest... yes?

Yes, failing to provide a name and address can lead to arrest. (i've always said that this information needs to be provided - it doesnt mean you need to speak to the officer)

You dont magically gain the right to say nothing after the arrest. It is a constant right

RS2000.

Tilt wrote: »

Don't they tell you that bit AFTER you've been arrested? Surely by not giving the officer his details so that he can be 'dealt with' is obstructing the officer in performing his duty to issue the FPN or report the cyclist for the offence? As such the only option would be to arrest... yes?

They should tell you that when the suspect you have committed an offence and they want to speak to you about it.

Cornucopia

To be clear the "Police say that" as part of the caution before interview.

It is an on-going right, and technically it is reminding you of that right when they say it.

There's no issue with writing down your details, however, your on-going right of silence is not mitigated or disrupted if you say the required details to the Officer, either.

Equally, there's no benefit to denying these minor offences, if you have already been caught red-handed. (Obviously depending on the situation, you may not know whether you have been caught red-handed).

RS2000. wrote: »

They should tell you that when the suspect you have committed an offence and they want to speak to you about it.

There is a great deal of debate and hand-wringing about where in the proceedings the caution should be issued. I am with you on this: I think it needs to be given before ANY questions are put to you about an offence that the Police have reasonable grounds to suspect you of. I also think that the caution should always reference Right to Counsel, when at the moment, it isn't always required.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

There is a great deal of debate and hand-wringing about where in the proceedings the caution should be issued. I am with you on this: I think it needs to be given before ANY questions are put to you about an offence that the Police have reasonable grounds to suspect you of. I also think that the caution should always reference Right to Counsel, when at the moment, it isn't always required.

There's no debate if you want the evidence to be admissible.

The caution and right to legal advice are always separate and should remain so. You still caution a suspect when their rights to legal advice are withheld.

Guest101

I believe powers of arrest are now part of SOCPA 2005, and there are 6 'reasons' to arrest.

The first 2 govern name and address

RS2000.

Guest101 wrote: »

I believe powers of arrest are now part of SOCPA 2005, and there are 6 'reasons' to arrest.

The first 2 govern name and address

166 posts and now going over something said in #3.

Guest101

RS2000. wrote: »

166 posts and now going over something said in #3.

Ok? It was 162 posts back, I missed it. Sorry if I inconvenienced you.

Cornucopia

RS2000. wrote: »

There's no debate if you want the evidence to be admissible.

Have you heard of Cadder? Scottish Law had to be changed because the process of caution was not sufficiently robust.

RS2000.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Have you heard of Cadder? Scottish Law had to be changed because the process of caution was not sufficiently robust.

Does it apply in England?

Cornucopia

No. Not AFAIK.

The related case of PF Glasgow vs Akram could be relevant across the UK.