Why You Should/Should NOT Talk to Police
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 січ 2023
- SUPPORT ME:
buy.stripe.com/14kdUS6gb4f26e...
Address for PAID FORMAL ADVICE *ONLY*: clerks@ShenSmith.com
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it, as there is no contract between us and I am not instructed by you.
For formal advice, please contact clerks@ShenSmith.com.
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated.
Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
In my interview with the police, I chose to remain silent throughout.
They told me I didn't get the job.🙄
probably for the best considering what your colleges would have been like.
🤣😂
😆👍👍 brilliant sense of humour
Nice one
:-)
Rule of thumb:
If you're guilty of doing something, you need a lawyer before talking to Police.
If you're NOT guilty of doing anything, you REALLY need a lawyer before talking to Police.
The reality is that at the roadside when questioned by the police, you are not going to call a lawyer and have them turn up.
@@deang5622 at the roadside just say as little as you possibly can. Reply with clear one word answers. "Yes, No"
@@deang5622 and regardless of what you say your still going to court possibly jail just say nothing
@@zoomermcboomer4771 alternatively: "I don't answer questions".
Deang, the codes of practice which police have to adhere to are clear as to what constitutes an interview.
Police can ask you questions about ownership of a car etc, at the roadside, and this will not constitute an interview.
But as soon as they suspect an offence, they have to caution you.
Some road traffic offences are considered complete offences which do not require an interview (albeit you will mostly likely be invited to make any explanation or mitigation in answer to the caution, if you want) but for something more substantial, they will want to interview you.
You have certain rights prior to and during interview and as you observe, the roadside is not the ideal place to exercise these rights.
So most likely, an arrangement will be made for you to attend the station, not under arrest, for the purpose of an interview.
You can forego the right to consult a solicitor and just be interviewed at the roadside, the officer writing down both questions and answers, with you then signing the notes to confirm they are accurate, initialing beside each completed line.
As a wise man once said - don't confuse justice with the law, they are not the same thing.
👏👏👏 quite so👍
The police care about the law. They DON'T care about justice. All they want is a conviction.
law is an ass
The main reason for not talking to the police is very simple - your relationship with them is highly asymmetric. They have considerable authority and powers that you don't have. They can lie to you, but you can't lie to them. They are trained, you aren't. They need to prove you guilty, you don't need to prove yourself innocent. They will not end up in jail as a result of the conversation, you could.
Absolute bollox. The Police cannot lie to you in order to obtain information from you. That's not to say some officers don't lie, but then they are very very often lied to by the people they talk to.
Not 100%true lol
Well put.
They have zero authority unless you have committed a crime
@@grahamhilder2064 Not true but OK.
Up until recently I had complete trust in the police, but in a recent interaction with them, my trust has been completely destroyed and I am never speaking to them again.
They say you should never meet your heroes. Much of the UK public has recently become better acquainted with the Police and the NHS and neither turned out to be worth all the adoration.
police stamped on my head and called me an f***ing p*ki even I am not! but i look like one i am tanned.
I was wrongly stopped for speeding but said very little at all to the police apart from answering questions about my details etc. this served me well when it went to court, I was able to give a true account of events and it was proven that the police had lied in their statements. the best bit was when they produced the speeding device and swore it was calibrated and certified. but when asked, they produced the WRONG certificate and they then asked for the proceedings to be halted to find the correct certificate on the police system, but could not find it. I was found not guilty!!!
calibration dude yehhhhhhh
A relative saw one car hit a parked car outside his place of work and drive off, The owner of the parked car hadn't returned by the time he left so he stopped by the police station to report it and they made him feel like he was the guilty party after being read his rights/cautioned. He said he won't make the mistake of reporting a crime the next time.
absolutely stay out of others business really its not good to get involved these days!
Everyone talks to the police until the first time you become a victim of their criminality and experience just how much they lie.. it's definitely an eye opener, and video every single interaction with them for your safety!!!
That is a valid point, unless you know some info on them, and avoid too much.
First proper time police got involved with me they abused child protection laws to gain entry to my house, all they said is a neighbour said they heard shouting (and what?). When I was "combative and stand offish" they accused me of being anti police! I told them I'm anti being accused of abuse and dicks barging into my house, they then proceeded to rout through all my stuff for 20 minutes. Never ever am I trusting or complying with the police again.
Absolutely right. Happened to me abroad, experiencing corruption like that in front of my eyes made me fall out of my chair.
You can simply say to the judge that you do not trust the police and for that reason you remain silenced and preferred to talk only in court.
Won’t work at all.
You could do that and take your chances. If it is a credible explanation it could work. If you could prove a reasonable reason for the distrust for the police could also work. It all depends on how the jury will take your answers.
The caution is, "you do not have to say anything. But IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT...."
It's self-explanatory there.
When invited for a "friendly chat" with police, always take a solicitor with as its NOT just a chat. They suspect you of commiting an offence and want to gather evidence and are hoping that you put your foot in your mouth and give them what they are looking for. This "if you've done nothing, you have nothing to worry about" is a technique they use to get you to talk. A solicitor will give advice as to whether its in your best interests to talk to the police or to remain silent. You have rights and you are harming yourself by not using them.
I went without one once because I committed the offence, they already had evidence it was very minor and I just wanted to get it over with. In that situation I honestly felt it was better to just be cordial and show remorse and honestly I’d do the same again. For anything more than that I’d totally agree with you though.
Depends why you are speaking to them, if there was no crime commited at all and it’s just a chat, should be alright as long as you don’t say you’re a massive drug smuggler or something mate
With reference to self defence, the police will often ask how the fight started. If, in your naivety, you go on to explain, it becomes difficult to argue self defence because you have already admitted to having been in a fight - affray, or worse, rather than self defence.
Don't speak to the police without legal advice.
The trouble with your scenario is that police must know you had been involved in an altercation, or else they wouldn't have been speaking to you in the first place.
Now is the ideal time to introduce self defence.
And a solicitor can advise on the proper way for you to articulate yourself
The lawyer tells me to "like & subscribe" to his channel......however, after watching a few of his videos, I will seek independent, professional legal advice before doing so.
@@funzy101 I also doubt such would impress a reasonable Jury "He is guilty of affray because he responded to the word fight when talking to the police"
However, you can be in a fight without the intention of fighting because a person or party who intend to inflict harm on you or at least within the realms of your awareness they intend to cause you harm and are acting to pursue that intention, fighting back is absolutely reasonable and would be regarded as self-defence. Ultimately, all people have a right to live, including your own right to live and defending yourself is an act to defend your right to life from someone who you suspect may have contempt towards your right to life. So it depends on the situation, nothing is black or white. What matters is the intention and your behaviour prior to that altercation.
@@jakkuwolfinsomnia8058 Thank you everybody for the legal advice.
If I'd been in possession of that all those years ago, I wouldn't have foolishly accepted the police caution and had my day in court instead.
My biggest worry about any police interaction is that they’re trying to fit you up from the start. They’re never talking to you out of politeness. “Why are you here, this is a high crime neighbourhood”.
So you would be happy for police to just let everyone walk around unchecked? You do realise the fundamental job of the police is to PREVENT crime. How can they do that if they don’t interact with anyone?
@@cmd2709 - police leaving everyone to walk round unchecked is exactly what should happen. The police need to focus on crime, and being seen as a deterrent. Maybe if they spent less time worrying about the Alphabet people, non-crime and hurty feelings then there would be less crime for everyone.
@@EdOeuna they can’t possibly be a deterrent if they leave everyone unchecked. “Man climbing up a ladder into a bedroom window” can’t check what he’s doing… might just be posting the stability of his new ladder? As for the “alphabet” people, hate “crime” is a crime and police need to deal with it. At the moment it’s a political hot potato and they are directed to spend more time dealing with that. If you disagree, get onto your MP, and see how far that gets you !
@@cmd2709 - they should be a deterrent by catching criminals and not just antagonising the law abiding population. There wouldn’t be so much road rage / speeding if there were lots of traffic cops. There wouldn’t be as much criminality if there were more Bonnie’s on the beat and realistic sentencing. Instead we’ve got burglaries not being investigated and years of organised gang rape of children getting dismissed because of cultural sensitivities.
@@EdOeuna most of your points are government issues not police. And haw do they catch criminals without occasionally speaking to “law abiding citizens” if you have done nothing wrong being stopped and spoken to by the police isn’t that much of an inconvenience is it!
after watching 24 hours in police custody where the scroats received a suspended sentence and the victim got sent down for 2 years, I vowed that I will never say anything should i find myself being questioned by the police.
Clearly the victim himself broke the law?
@@geordiewishart1683 Yes he was found guilty of GBH, which he was according to English law and would have been found guilty even without him saying anything, most criminals know more than innocent members of the public.
Absolutely right - A lot of everyday people have no respect for the law because the law doesn’t carry justice.
You do understand that it’s generally the police’s job to put people before the court. After that happens the outcome has absolutely nothing to do with them. Lenient sentences frustrates them as much as anyone
When I watched that programme I got the impression that the police investigating the incident empathised with the victim and that the CPS took the matter out of the police’s hands. It was then the court that dished out the sentences.
Police investigating the theft of a portable item? Somebody must know the chief constable.
lol
As an ex-copper I advise you never to talk to the police any more than giving your details if required.
Police training changed in 1997; we went from simply asking questions with an honest view to trying to get to the bottom of the complaint to something more nefarious. It changed into a form of questioning to obtain sufficient grounds to arrest, even when an arrest wasn't in the public interest. It became a sausage machine to feed into CPS. Figures started to be chased in a manner that became very uncomfortable. In 2008, certain offences became "no crime", shoplifting, Bilking, petty theft etc. The senior offices decided not to bother with them. If you brought a shoplifter into the cells and they had stolen less than £200, they were let go and then left with no further action. Just take the details, record them, and if they offend in a more serious crime, we could use it as leverage if caught for something else.
The orientation also went from the persistent offender to the first-time offender. If someone was known to shoplift, they were not targeted by the local beat. Instead, we were retrained to pursue the first-time offender. A person who had only ever seen to police as their friend. These members of the public will more often than not incriminate themselves or admit what they did because it was what they were always taught by their own parents. The persistent offenders simply go "no comment" when questioned, so you were reliant on getting sufficient evidence to pass the CPS line for taking up a prosecution.
For many coppers of the old school, we saw this as dishonest and left.
Sadly, you are correct. Also “performance indicators” introduced by the Blair government, were supposed to be used to show the public how better the police were becoming or not. The problem was, the individual Constables now had no way to use their desecration when dealing with people.
Can't beat an old-school copper, thanks for your service!
Sounds like the way American law enforcement have always been accused of not being interested in the truth, any conviction will do.
Yep.i wouldn't speak to the police other than what I have to say. Other than that, I'm saying nothing
Thank you for your insight, that was very interesting.
I knew an ex policeman, a lovely chap, he’d served for many many years but left due to the changing aspects of policing. A very sad state of affairs. I can’t help but feel this ‘change’ could be one reason as to why the public seems to have lost confidence in our police force.
I once had an interaction with the police and said the wrong thing.
I was about 25 and frequented various rock and alternative bars and venues and was hanging around in late afternoon and attracted the attention of passing police.
They approach and start asking questions, asking what I'm doing and what my name is to which I decide to not answer and tell them so. At this point they say I'm acting suspiciously and they they need to know who I am.
I'm a young smart arse so I ask if knowing my name makes them think I'm less suspicious.
They start getting a bit flustered and then say that the reason they're asking is they're concerned because they got a call of someone matching my description acting suspiciously at a different location I hadn't been that day.
Feeling amused at how it was going and knowing no such call or sighting took place I said the wrong thing - I said nonsense, I've not been there today and I doubt anyone matches my description.
This was taken as my admitting that if someone saw anyone matching my description then it would be under 100% of my certainty be me which then allowed them to cuff and search me and they got my name and found a vitorinox Swiss army knife on me and I was taken to a custody suite where the desk sgt didn't even bother booking me and I was let go so I lost an hour of my life and was three miles from where I was before.
from then on I got searched near weekly looking for drugs which I've never taken, used or possessed.
Ahhh, I have looked for my stolen goods, found them, re opened the crime reference , sent all info on to the police and the police decided the good whilst seemed to be mine, wont seize them back for me.... so much for the police.
I've had the police come round 3 times in the last 4 months. The first time they were looking for someone who'd never even lived at my address. I've lived here for the last 32 years and know all the people who've lived in the flat above me in that time. The fools even said they didn't know if they had the right address! The second time was about 2 months ago when they came round regarding an ongoing dispute with the person who runs a cafe underneath me, about noise. I'd been filming outside on the street. Then a couple of weeks ago, they came round again, falsely accusing me of doing more filming and that they had CCTV footage. I told them they couldn't have because I hadn't. I went on to say that a few years ago I was acquitted in a magistrates' court when the police claimed to have CCTV evidence which they didn't. This false allegation was an alleged driving offence. I told them "The police were lying about having CCTV footage then and you haven't got any now". After a while of them continuing to lie, I said "I've had enough of this" and closed the door in their faces! I've got nothing but complete and utter contempt for the police. They're scum.
Sounds like they were looking to harass you and lying about it.
Sounds like you're just a problem neighbour tbh. I can assure you, with the pile of paperwork to follow up on their desks, forced overtime and s*** pay that they're not out harassing you for s***s and gigs. You're also a total liar and idiot because you clearly don't even understand that the police have to submit evidence for a trial, prior to said trial. They can't just rock up and submit it in court during a trial. So there's no way you ever found yourself in a courtroom with the police saying they had video evidence of you committing an offence. Then when the judge asked to see said evidence they were unable to produce it as you suggested. That case wouldn't have ever seen the light of day in a courtroom without said evidence being submitted to the court first.
@@jamesw9873 What the hell do you know about it? You were there were you? HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A LIAR YOU IGNORANT IDIOT. My neighbour is the problem, having had parties going on until 4am before he was even granted a licence for his premises. He also threatened to smash my teeth in if I informed the council or the police. What did the police do? Nothing. Both my mother and my aunt worked for the police force in question when the Chief Constable was arrested along with the Detective Sergeant and the Detective Inspector. The latter 2 were jailed for 5 years and the Chief Constable sacked. This was for accepting bribes for among other things, turning a blind eye to licensing regulations. That was many years ago but that appears to be what is happening in the same force now. I asked the owner of the cafe who he was paying in the police. His answer? "All of them".
As for the alleged CCTV footage of the driving incident, what they showed in court was time stamped and not when they alleged it was, as they well knew. if you knew anything about what you're talking about, you'd know that a magistrates' court does not usually have a judge. In this case it was a bench of 3 Justices of the Peace. People like you make me sick.
@@nickhirst999 Definitely a problem neighbour
@@jamesw9873 Yes. My neighbour is indeed a problem. I'm glad you've worked it out.
I’m surprised BBB doesn’t have millions of subscribers. His informative videos are invaluable
India Bliss
I too believe he should have millions of subscribers because no one knows when they may get that heavy knock on the door.
What does perturb me a bit is that like the law he is cold, no fluff, no expression to let you see or believe that he thinks that some laws may be a bit distasteful or poorly formulated in his opinion, but I suppose he does have a professional body who may censure him if he gets too opinionated and a living to make as well, so I suppose he does what he can with what he's got.
@@wjf0ne I would certainly disagree with your statement that that he is "cold, no fluff". Have you seen how some lawyers can be impersonal, how arid their speech can be, and how lacking in specific examples most legal explanations are?
On the contrary, he is very good at giving real-life examples, he is perfectly human, neither his language nor his accent are posh - in summary he is very easy to listen to.
I suspect you may be relying on what you have seen in movies - real life is very different.
Also, as a lawyer, if he confused opinion with fact, he would be of very little help.
He has 3 videos on "what knives you can carry".
Promoting knife crime.
@@kevinkascolinkeithtimghera4305 so anyone who wants to carry a knife is a criminal? I remember when carrying a pocket knife was considered perfectly normal.. Its not the blade that makes something an offensive weapon, it's the intent with which it's carried.
@@andrewstones2921 I agree. But to a copper? There is no good reason.
I am a stab victim, and he never got charged as the Met were balancing their race books.
Life sucks, sometimes.
The police are trained to protect the status quo, including themselves. I've had a number of experiences in which they didn't know the law in a certain area. They will still pretend they do and act illegally themselves.
They aren't your friend, they are the authority
There’s plenty of videos on UA-cam of interactions with the police, where the cop makes it up as he goes along. I’m sure the police tactics depend on the public not knowing the law or their rights.
I have relatives in the police. The general mind set is that you are guilty and their job to get you to admit it, even if you are innocent.
They should never back down despite the evidence as admitting a mistake devalues their authority.
Even when off duty, my relatives are quite despicable people though they have an attitude that seems to be a virtue to the police.
To say "Good morning" is to give a weather forecast.
i have seen them on audiror channels 97% is soulless humorless cold dull lack any basic humanity and drunk on their uniform and badge
They will also NEVER apologize if they've clearly just abused you as well. They just pack up and leave as quickly as they came to assume guilt on you.
I have purchased a chest cam that can be switched on moments notice if I encounter road rage or any other incidents. The amount of times I have been interviewed by coppers cos someone said I attacked them. Their word against mine. Not with a camera win win every time
🤣🤣🤣🤣yeah alright mate lol
@@fpvDRE He is smart to do that. I split up a fight between two guys once. Eventually got called to the station which I thought nothing of because all I tried to do was separate them and hold them apart. Turns out one of the guys accused me of stamping on him and breaking his collarbone (the two guys fell during their fight so must have either happened then, or at some point after).
@@1337murk 😂😂
@@fpvDRE Not sure what you find funny about that.. you seem quite simple.
@@fpvDRE You seem to lack real world experience. I'm guessing you spend all your time hiking in fields/hills, so it does make sense.
I did jury service when I was 19 (many years ago now) and was on the jury for two cases, one very serious and disturbing, to be honest, at that time I didn’t feel at all prepared to make a judgement, and I was not alone, I spent 3 weeks in court and didn’t think that any evidence the police provided was particularly useful, it was so ambiguous, the judges summing up and instruction didn’t help either, and we spent 3 days deliberating, with no clear idea of what had happened during our time in court (which was nearly 2 weeks) a complete deadlock between us jurors, and an increasingly pissed off judge, who didn’t really help when we asked questions relating to the trial. We ended up being dismissed at, I think it was 60/40, and that was a stretch because we spent most of the time with a 50/50 split!
On another occasion I was a victim to potential poisoning/contamination within a certain product purchased from a supermarket, made by a company that at the time was being protested and targeted (unknown to us at the time), we contacted the company from the number on the product, concerned because our kids had tasted it, and were visited (unannounced) by plain clothed police investigators within hours, who immediately made out that we were guilty of something, like we had poisoned our own purchase (and fed it to our children) to get some payout or action against the company! They opened the questioning with the line “have you ever been in trouble with the police before?” To which I said, why am I in trouble now? (Figure of speech they said).
We didn’t know what was in the product (a powdered drink) and that was our main concern, because our kids had both taken a swig of the drink, and there reaction was how we knew something was up, but that didn’t seem to be the main concern of the police, they treated us like criminals, a few days later whilst we were out, the police entered our back garden and went through our bins, we heard nothing again, apart from the company sending us a voucher for a replacement product, and I had to chase it up find out what it was, it was washing powder of detergent. After that, I noticed the product was withdrawn, and when it came back it had a sticker on the lid to warn about the seal being broken.
4xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx4xxxxxxxx
Interesting!
I guess these kind of things really do happen all the time, everywhere, every day. Just when I start to get complacent and maybe start to think "oh well, I guess my local police are doing the best they can", I read something like this and it reminds me that no, they are all corrupt, and they are all malicious.
What's the point in having the right to remain silent if choosing to do so is later deemed to be an inconsistency? I've had experiences with police that have left me unwilling to ever trust them again and I would never tell them a damn thing. I'd rather take my chances explaining my silence to the jury, than talk to the police.
@@paulcollyer801 Appreciated, but the quality of legal representation I've had the misfortune to encounter wouldn't make me any less inclined to remain silent with police, tbh.
@@paulcollyer801 I can relate. I've represented several people in employment tribunals and won every time. I believed that well-presented truth was all you needed, but later in life I've learned that's not always enough. Some prosecutions are wilfully avoided, whilst others are unreasonably pursued. The truth didn't seem to matter, tbh.
@@paulcollyer801
Even having legal representation doesn't oblige you to talk to the police.
@@paulcollyer801
Perhaps not the one next on the list that the police call when you ask for one. There is very little money in for them and it's usually a junior who is on the list for such things. If you can afford one use them although they aren't that good at late night visits and do like to wait until it's convenient for them before they come, but that's good as it eats up the time on the clock.
The best advise is, try hard not to break the law although that is nearly impossible since the Blair years and the numerous laws passed then and since designed to screw the public to the floor.
I am a OAP sometimes I forget about things and do not all ways remember everything and some times become confused understanding what is said to me and being in court would cause me great stress
and not being able to think thinks out I might put my self in a mess
When I was interviewed by the Police some years ago, I gave a 'no comment' interview but I justified my 'no comment' response first (fear of self-incrimination given the extreme bias I understood the police to have..) and my Solicitor furnished a pre-prepared statement presenting my innocence. It was a complicated case, it never went to Court and I was not charged. The Police even unlawfully seized some of my property and did not return it so, with the aid of my Solicitor, I received a cash sum in compensation.
All this is telling me that it's a huge game with a massive list of rules that have all been agreed and taught to lots of people well in advance that the vast majority of us are not privy to and may never come across.
Whenever someone asks if I understand these rights that they have explained, I always say no. I said I will need to discuss these things with my lawyer to find out the proper interpretation. After that, they are not legally allowed to question me without a lawyer present.
You can say you do understand the rights and then refuse to answer any question until your lawyer is present
Well, one of your rights is to speak with a solicitor, so understanding the caution has nothing to do with it being a legal interview.
When the say. Do you understand. It doesn't mean what everyone would think it means. It has a complete different meaning all together. Do not trust anything they say to you. Even if they come up to you on the street acting like they are your friend. Their not. They are looking to pin you with something. For me. All trust of the uk Police force is no existing. And even now. You hear about all the nasty things they have done all over the new. But they protect their own. Even if they are murderers and rapists. It would make you sick.
I have been on a Jury , and the prosecution witnesses clearly lied .
They also happened to be police officers
I also have family members who were police officers , I would never even tell them my favourite colour , far less anything personal or incriminating .
So NOTHING you can ever say as a prosecutor will ever convince me as a Juror, if you have police witnesses for the prosecution.
Very well said. A sad state of affairs, but I totally agree with you.
My daughter is a police officer and my neighbour is a police officer and they are both corrupt liars! 🤥
I spoke to a local officer recently as my neighbour was suffering horrid racist abuse, being called the N word repeatedly etc. According to the officer I spoke to.. that racism is allowed due to freedom of speech.. I was shocked.
The same officer had an extremely camp accent.. if I was to make assumptions based on that, I would assume he is part of LGBTQ, and I have since wondered, if it was an offensive slur relating to the rainbow, would he/the police in general have treated the situation differently
Worth mentioning that I even showed pages from the CPS site determining what hate speech is etc, he still shrugged it off as freedom of speech
If you say nowt it can’t be twisted!
As a boy, I learned that because your parent has a criminal background, the police can use this to call it crime on crime. They can refuse to help you even if people break into your home, and threaten violence with weapons.
I cannot forgive that
Thankfully up here, no inference maybe drawn by exercising your right to silence.
More people talk themselves into trouble, than out of it.
The moral of this story is, don't borrow things from friends
Or don't trust anyone?
I was once stopped for speeding, the police man said "do you realise you were doing 70mph" I replied "I wasn't, was I?" When it got to court, he got his note book out and read my reply to his question as "I wasn't.... was I!! " the different inflection he gave the sentence definitely meant I got a larger fine.
BBB or another lawyer has done a video on this.
It's a trick question. The question is usually "Do you know why I stopped you?" If you answer Yes to it, then you are admitting that you were speeding. If you answer No to it, then the copper will charge you with driving without due care and attention because you were not aware of the speed you were travelling out.
You have to find a clever way to answer the question without incriminating yourself.
@@deang5622 , best answer is, " I thought that you wanted to take me out to dinner".
@@johnvienta7622 Yeah, that could work!
That was your fault alone and that answer you gave regardless how it was read increased the charges. You were caught speeding but you also showed that you were driving without due care and attention.
@@CarterWills1 So is it ok for a police officer to lie in Court?
I’d just like to know which police force would be bothered to investigate a crime of theft against a person rather than just issuing a crime number for insurance purposes!
My parked car in front of my house was written off in a hit and run. They didn't even bother to come and have a look. An officer just coldly told me to fill in the form on line to get a crime number. However, the council is quick to send the hefty TAX bill which includes a payment for the local Police.
@Pietro Bembo when your local police service is staffed by less than 10 officers on average to serve tens of thousands of people- getting them to come out to a road traffic collision where no one's hurt isn't at the top of the priority list.
@@theeasternraider5517 When a customer complains about the service and I would tell them we are understaffed and underpaid, do you think they care? I am not saying that you are wrong and I understand. However, my council bill (includes local Police) reflect serious poor value for money. A traffic collision, hit in run = crime not an accident in my case, should be looked at by the traffic Police anyway.
@@WolfgangVonKempelen838 there's even less traffic police than there are normal response police. To put it simply, there is far too much crime and not enough officers or people willing to become officers to deal with it.
@@theeasternraider5517 So true, we still have two year of this government ahead of us. The illegal criminals might run society by then opposed to the legal ones running it now. Not much to look forward to, either way.
This is one that concerns me greatly - I'm autistic, and one of the quirks of my flavour of autism is that whereas most folks' memories work chronologically (ie they can easily remember when events occurred, and the order in which they did so), my memory is more like a pool of dots...sometimes loosely connected, mostly completely unconnected. That would leave me with a massive problem should I be cautioned; it's entirely possible that I could miss things out simply because I didn't recall them at the time, but then later (eg at interview, or on the stand) recall them with perfect clarity.
Would that make me an unreliable witness? Not necessarily, because I'm always entirely accurate about the things that I _do_ recall, but the missing parts may or may not be relevant. It would almost certainly make me _look_ unreliable or untrustworthy to interviewing officers or a jury, though.
Although not autistic (officially) I can totally relate to this comment. In the heat of the moment I wouldn't remember pertinent facts.
Just steer clear of them. As someone on the autism spectrum myself, I've had way too many times where the police convinced me I was helping them, but really they were trying to either trip me up into accountability for something I didn't do, and even tried to pressure a family to press charges on me for handling stolen goods because I had bought a stolen bike unaware, whilst trying to trick me with their wording whilst I willingly took the bike to the police once I found out, thinking I was being helpful. I lost money that day (which i had spent on the bike), almost lost my freedom too.
I've also been beaten to the ground by police when their 'backup arrived'.. all I was doing was giving a calm witness statement about an attack I'd witnessed at a train station, I was nothing to do with it. I didn't even get to finish my witness statement as half way through I got barged to the ground, and then again as I tried to get up.
Most police are thugs, those that are not thugs are often predators/abusers in some way or another (my sister was groomed by an officer dealing with her domestic case, he is in prison now).
Your autism puts you at greater risk regarding police
digiscream
Number one, you priority is you, not what the police think about you, most of them think you're pond life anyway and you wouldn't impress them even if you had a photographic memory and the ability to express yourself like a barrister.
Number two, get a lawyer and explain your difficulty to them and let them take it from there.
All that should be taken into account if you're ever involved with the police but I don't think they would use someone in your predicament in court unless they really had to.
@@67cyborg1 You'd think so, but a disability like that is more likely going to be used in their favour to manipulate you into falling for their bs trap, so they can get their stats up
Either way....from my experience on a jury, I'm amazed anyone ever gets convicted of anything given how forcefully beyond reasonable doubt is repeatedly forced down jurors throat.
Yep...I've personally witnessed that...as a juror on someone that was clearly guilty
I witnessed the complete opposite when I was last on a jury, they couldn't wait to find the guy guilty with zero evidence.
As it should be.
Not saying anything is and not answering any questions is always the best approach. Unless you under arrest and being interviewed under caution. In that case, dont answer a single question of theirs. Always go “No comment”. But at the start of the interview read out a prepared statement giving your account of events. After that stay silent or say no comment. That way you are at least on record as giving an account of events, but on your terms and not under manipulation of the police.
You should never speak to the police. Even in interview they cherry pick from the tape recordings and try to use the doctored transcript in court. I know this from experience. They believe the witnesses and DO NOT check out other avenues. My case was complex, but one of the witnesses said in their statement that i watch them every morning when they leave for work. They were asked at what time do they leave work, they said 8:00am. My timesheets from work showed that i was at work before 8:00am. The case was thrown out through lack of evidence.
Surely best rule is to not say anything until you have spoken to a good lawyer and then follow their advice. Nobody should ever comment without advice especially in heat of the moment or when tired or intoxicated.
I had a jury trial in October, it was absolutely terrifying, I was acquitted but scary, I have Asperger's too, my advice for police interviews is as follows, if your guilty you need a lawyer present if your innocent then you need a lawyer even more, never buy into this crap about having a lawyer present might make you look guilty, that's exactly what the police will want you to think, if you talk or don't talk, it will be constructed against you, don't say 'no comment' like that, ASK FOR A LAWYER TO BE PRESENT, always, they might come off nice, they might come off agressive it's all a tactic pre-meditated, they think you have committed a crime and they are intent on proving it.
Personally, I ask for a consultation first and ask if the interview is voluntary or standard, if the latter then make clear that you intend to answer to the charge in court, not in the context of an evidence gathering hear say based interview, if the former then simply say you don't consent to the interview, I'm talking to people who are innocent of a crime mostly as I don't like giving people the idea that there is some magical method to getting away with stuff, you can have the best lawyer in the world, it will come down to evidence, obviously unless your lawyer spots some legal technicality, this is where good lawyers pay off, so if your innocent, absolutely make sure you get a solicitor present, get a consultation, no matter how much you think they are good guys and they will and have with me, convinced me it's not that serious and they will get me back up the road as soon as possible, it's all staged, then the guy at the charge bar will say something to the officers like, 'is he going in a cell?' and they say, 'well it depends on what he does here' referring to the lawyer question, as they aren't allowed to advise you not to, I've got plenty experience with this exact situation and there is absolutely no words on earth that will alter the outcome to suit you if you speak, you don't need to explain nothing to them, again because I can't stress this enough, they are not your friends, be represented.
If run-on sentences were a crime, you have given the police enough evidence to hang you.
..... your quite used to assisting the Police with their enquiries then ?!🤔
@@501sqn3 I don’t follow what you mean, if the enquiry related to some other matter and they need me to help then yes, I’m very pro police and pro my country and I love my nation including it’s legal system although flawed, how would I be helping police what do you mean?
@@darrenhenderson6921 I was only observing from your post,- you seem to have the helped the police out a few times!. That's all,
@@501sqn3 in what context have I helped the police out? Expand on your answer as it makes zero sense, I assume your some cockney guy who thinks I’ve snitched my way out situations, sorry to tell you, the system doesn’t work this way either, informants maybe get a blind eye turned when they are selling a bit of weed as it’s now at the discretion of that officer, and what would be wrong with helping police? Are you pro crime? What kind of person are you? I’ve advocated for AI assisted technologies not just for suspects but even criminals who have managed to get into police and abuse powers, not to replace people but to assist, I am technically a criminal but this is my past and I consider myself a man of peace, I don’t hang about with anyone who I could rat out and I don’t get into trouble with police anymore, you have no idea what these guys go through, could you go telling families their loved ones are dead (YOU probably could) could you analyse evidence of abuses i won’t even mention, I get triggered from some UA-cam videos, I think maybe I shouldn’t watch them but possibly even ban or age restrict some of them, your obviously and ignorant young guy who doesn’t like police because you were probably caught stealing pants if a washing line, I don’t blame police or the system for what I’ve done with my past, there is little hope for guys like you and you will probably be dead within a year from street Valium, or be in jail for punting crack
From my experience I was falsely accused by the police of involvement in terrorism.(Regina v stone et al 1983 trial ,arrested in 1982)I was acquitted on all charges. ( possession of explosives ,section 3 explosives act.conspiracy to cause explosions and a bombing charge).I was interrogated by mi5,special branch,South Wales police ,Birmingham anti- terrorist squad and London anti-terrorost squad and Stratford-upon-Avon regional serious crime squad.i was interrogated for 36 hours.thus was before p. a.c.e. no interviews were recorded.the police decided that I couldn't have a solicitor as they might interfere with their interrogation .the police made up evidence including planting explosives and with some of my fellow defendents false confessions.two juries separately overturned the police " evidence" my experience would be say nothing until you have a solicitor to advise. I eventually had 60 police officers suspended and some retired earlier no doubt you may draw your own conclusions as to why .
That's outrageous conduct. We had a murder case here in NZ in the '70s that saw the conviction of a man based on planted evidence (a shell casing). One of the cops that planted it was known as 'the gardener' among his peers due to his propensity for 'planting' things (so much for the few bad apples theory...). After 9 years the accused was pardoned. A Royal Commission of Enquiry determined his conviction was unsafe and he was compensated for his time in jail, but the cops were never charged despite the same Royal Commission making the determination that the evidence was planted by them. That fact was obvious to anyone because they only 'discovered' it 4 months after the original search of the same area, and despite it supposedly having lain outside on dirt, it was in pristine condition.
To rub salt into the wound, the Police Commissioner even spoke at the gardener's funeral when he died in the 2010s and referred to him as having 'integrity beyond reproach'.
It's enough to make you sick. And it's only getting worse - by design.
It does make you wonder why the police stitch people up like this.
You expect police officers to be honest and they behave like that.
Unfortunately we get the legal system and the police that apathy deserves.
@@adrianstone8541 I really don’t think we do deserve this nonsense.
The police in the 80s in this country were beneath contermpt, some of the shit they pulled was mindboggling. Thank god for video cameras.
The police used to be respected when Dixon of Dock Green was on BBC TV ,he never had ulterior motives when he talked to the public ,I respected him and trusted him I would never ride my bicycle on the footpath or give my friends a ride on my cross bar ,just incase I bumped into him or any other policeman
RESPECT IS THE NAME OF THE GAME ON BOTH SIDES
I'm not convinced by Shen's case for "talking to the police", when questioned under caution, based on the scenario he describes. A defendant testifies in court and, for the very first time, makes claims that have never been put forward before. The implication of the UK police caution is that even refusing to answer questions until you've spoken to a lawyer can harm your defence. However, if you consult a lawyer, you may be advised to give some information to the police, which is pertinent to your defence and which they can then investigate - for example, to corroborate an alibi. Your lawyer may also advise you not to answer certain questions, which might put you at risk of a wrongful conviction. This is perfectly normal. If you are charged and your case goes to trial, a "statement of defence" is required - but my understanding is that this is normally prepared by your lawyer and is presented to the court, not to the police. In Shen's scenario, the prosecutor casts doubt on the defendant's court testimony, because it mentions claims which were not even mentioned in the defence statement! This is not at all the same as refusing to answer questions until you've consulted a lawyer, nor indeed, declining to answer certain questions, on legal advice.
You’re absolutely spot on. I’m not convinced in the slightest about talking to the police. All information will be submitted in the defence statement. It’s perfectly reasonable not to speak to the police. It’s your right, you’re in a pressured and anxious situation. Therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable to stay quiet and not worry about tripping on your own words that WILL be twisted against you. There is no consequence for a lying police officer in an interview, there is for the interviewee.
The most important thing to ask police is why so many of their Inspectors have been caught blatantly lying by 'auditors', and why when caught redhanded not following the law, making up laws or abusing the law, they and their subordinates very seldom take complaints seriously, often stating openly that they won't.
Auditors 😂😂😂
The purpose of questioning is to illicit further evidence, if they had the evidence, you would be charged without the need for questioning. I would not even acknowledge I was in the interview room, I wouldn't open mouth at all. I have done on a couple of occasions in the past, left the police station after a few days without charge.
Friend of mine who is by n means daft had to do jury service and told me he was glad it was just a case of theft. Because when the barristers did their summing up or closing arguments (whatever it’s called in 🇬🇧) he was convinced the guy was innocent and then convinced he was guilty ( or the other way around)so he was glad it wasn’t a murder trial!
After watching many auditors on UA-cam I was shocked at how many were wrongly treated by the police. Due to this I've asked many members of the public what they think of today's police & I was alarmed at the answers I got from the majority.
The police have seemingly lost all respect from the British public.
I'm left saddened that the police force has become such from my younger days when they were respected.
Yes, respect is earned, not just given by default. All trust is long gone ,,,, and it's
not coming back.
Many people lost faith in the police when they saw how they were treating innocent people especially the elderly during lockdown. If there was no lockdown some would still support them 100%.
T Man
The police have been given too many powers and use and abuse them just to get their way. There is also the rise of the Karen which plod seems to need to placate.
Same in the US
You do realised that these “auditors” only post the videos that get a reaction. The many hundreds and thousands that have been filmed with no response never get posted. They post what they want to get a reaction, they are all about views.
I had two mud flaps stolen off my car told the police 👮♀️ as I saw them fitted to the car of the thief, told the police they were mine ,and I was taking them back.i was told I would be done for theft,I was told I had to prove they were mine,because they were fitted on his vehicle. I never did get them back .
Wow what a great video, thank you. Packed with so much information & a brilliant insight about both sides of the story.
Daniel, thank you for sharing this information with us and your followers. How on earth can we be expected to remember all that information 🤔. I am really glad that I follow your UA-cam channels BlackBeltBarrister and BlackBeltSecrets. I am surprised that you can remember all this information so you can refer to the law book's and most probably fast access to online law databases. It is a shame that the law society does not offer the average British Citizen temporary access to the law simple databases and give advice on whom to contact for professional legal advice. Hope that you and your family had a good Christmas and New Year's Eve, but also looking forward to the New Chinese New Year. Best regards, Bev and Chris.
As far as I'm concerned the police are not there to help you unless it's a car accident etc but they only want to catch you out when talking to you. They are always playing catch up witch is frustrating and the human element is always a problem in any scenario. Like I said not there to help you. 😩
They aren't even there to help you with a car accident, having been on the receiving end of "police help" while being legally parked up, hand brake on, keys out, and having someone drive into the side of me, they were more intent on trying to get me to say I was on my phone (I wasn't) and get me done for holding a mobile phone, than dealing with the idiot who drove into a parked car
They're basically human resources for the government.
It’s a witch hunt, which means they see what they want to see!
I would imagine not speaking to the police in some circumstances would possibly lead to the CPS dropping the case.
Without a doubt!
And equally, the opposite is true - in some cases (such as those BBB references), talking to the police openly can lead to CPS dropping the case.
For example, if you were clearly and provably somewhere else when whatever it is supposedly happened.
@@redtela If you were somewhere else and it is clearly provable then isn't it up to the police to find that out for themselves? They would look pretty foolish in court if it went to trial because you remained silent and your defense lawyer demolished their case because they didn't do any kind of investigation in the example he gave of them thinking you were in another location.
@@Henry1965ism - do you honestly think that such a case would make it past the CPS threshold for charging, let alone into a trial?
What's wrong with the police "finding it out for themselves" by you telling them?
Why be difficult, just for the sake of being difficult?
@@redtela if I had iron clad evidence of my innocence I would tell them immediately. However if they were unprofessional, confrontational and accusative coppers, it might be tempting to refrain from providing that alibi for a bit, just to see how they twist the evidence to suit their suspect first - and then - sink their case. But it'd have to be a damn good alibi. In reality if you're in trouble you will drop the bravado and provide any exculpatory evidence you have immediately. And get legal council.
I was brought up NOT to have anything to do with police, 'Dont trust 'em as far as can throw 'em', and I still dont. I had a dear friend who joined up, but because of the police connection he did drift into obscurity, and last year I said goodbye as he'd died, most of the guests were Police as you can spot 'em a mile away
With your words I have now increased my negativity to them.
Honestly, having sat through a horrifying case as a Juror, the Crown Prosecutor’s argument was brought about by the defendant voluntary police interviews… shocking, really, how it can be twisted. After verdict day and dismissal, I vowed I’d never talk to the police. NO COMMENT.
Currently doing an Open Uni Law degree and finding your content very interesting - thank you!
Thanks for your insights. Happy New Year.
So the lesson is: Do NOT talk to the police BUT within hours, through your lawyer, give your side of the story. That way no one can claim that you have made it up at trial months letter.
Based on conversations with various police officers over the years, I feel that before saying anything you need to ask yourself “Who does this serve?”. Similarly, before NOT saying something, as yourself “Who does this serve?” When dealing with any questioning, whether that’s police, prosecutors, journalists, managers, HR officers &c, bear in mind how they are performance managed. They will shape their questions to lead to the outcome that puts them in the best position to achieve their performance goals.
There are courses on the psychology of questioning you can get on, or it might be embedded in other courses (NLP, Sales, Interviewing skills &). Understanding the area can be very helpful whichever end you are on.
That is exactly right.
There is a classic line used by police officers which is "You have the opportunity to tell us what happened", suggesting it is for your benefit, and of course it isn't for your benefit, it's for them so they can get incriminating evidence against you.
It's one big con.
You're absolutely right, think before speaking. "How does this benefit me" and if the answer is it doesn't, then shut up.
@@deang5622 you should always tell them what happened, you should always tell what is objectively true, how you choose to frame and shape that objective truth is the key.
Parents are having to teach their kids to say if the police talk to them, at all, “Sir, I cannot talk to you without my lawyer present” then to shut up. As a union rep I’m frequently having to tell members who have cases pending not to talk to managers or HR unless I or another competent rep are with them. It makes my job much harder if they run their mouth without representation. That’s why I’ve learned about the psychology of questioning.
@@StephenBoothUK No.
I think you are missing the point.
They have arrested 'you'.
In most cases this occurs because they have already decided you have committed an offence. They are not looking to exonerate you, they are seeking evidence which can be used to help their prosecution case.
@@deang5622 They say you are being arrested for shoplifting so you say through your lawyer "I was leaving the store after paying for my shopping when some uniformed thug who clearly thinks he's in Miami Vice grabbed me then started going through my bags. I couldn't see what he already had in his hands. Shouldn't you be arresting him for assault?" Factually true but establishes doubt.
Thanks again for your solid gold support and advice 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👍🏽💯🙏🏾
"You have the right to remain silence ,anything you say or do will be or may be used in the court of law "
Negative inference is more likely if you change your story not by saying nothing. You could always talk to a lawyer first an have a prepared statement. I agree this is not always convenient you probably want to go home, but you want to maximise your change of going home. Can be a difficult call for a 'simple' matter.
Courts could be seen to be justice casinos and the law industry is always a very interesting one. Love the videos
I hate the fact that the UK does not have a "right to remain silent" law and that the prosecution isn't punished for accusing the defendant simply because they remained silent.
If you say nothing whilst in police custody and then issue a written statement to the police immediately after release, only answering the questions they raised in the interview, i presume that would negate the negative inference. I would like to think i would say absolutely nothing if interviewed under caution until i had heard exactly what the possible charge was and what evidence they think they have, one does hope i will not need to test this theory 😂
The trouble with this tactic is that if police have a seemingly prima facie against you, and you decline to cooperate with the interview, perhaps resulting in you failing to reveal information which may vindicate you, or introduce mitigation, you may find yourself not being released, but rather remanded. Or maybe charged and released.
Don't forget, the wording of the caution includes "if you fail to mention, when QUESTIONED" .
There is a legitimate tactic of police drip feeding the details of the case against you during interview, so that you don't know the full evidence against you first, thus allowing you to construct a false defence around the facts.
Of course, legally, full disclosure need only be made before any trial, not during the interview process.
If you think about the caution it states "if you fail to mention when questioned" or at the point of charge "if you fail to mention now" if you then subsequently produce a prepared statement, the prosecution would probably use that to cast doubt over its validity. Despite what all the conspiricy theorists on here believe, police officers will give your solicitor full disclosure before an interview, and what disclosure has been given is disclosable at court. They know that if you don't give disclosure all you will ever get is no comment, or having to stop the interview for the interviewee to consult with the solicitor if something is mentioned that wasn't disclosed. I don't know what the actual figures are, but probably 90% of interviews are no comment. Too many people seem to think that what they see on TV is reality!
@@geordiewishart1683 I would not see it as none cooperation as a person would mearly be excersing thier legal right to say nothing which is written in the UK law.
Correct, this is excellent advice I always give.
"When questioned"
My motto is to "Make them earn their salary" 👍
You think that they don't do anything?
@@michaeldunham3385 Two words 'Grooming gangs' .... Is that enough for ya ?
@@michaeldunham3385 Oh sure, they do SOME things. Like arresting people for mean words and silent prayer.
They don't convict any actual criminals though.
@@j.jbinks9669 police have no power conviction
@@johnbowkett80 accusations of racism...... political, I'm obviously not saying it was right just how it was
I thought you shouldn't answer questions on an interview, period. The reason being is, if you answer one question, then you can't stop answering questions, as you will be accused of choosing what you want to answer and when it gets difficult you have decided to stay quiet.
You can choose to give an account and then refuse certain questions if you feel it isn't relevant/too speculative/malicious - your solicitor will interrupt if a question if this is the case and direct you as necessary. The police will remind you about the caution if you refuse to answer and then move on, and will decide later if your refusal to answer one question specifically is worthwhile evidence to put before a jury.
Thank you for this. Its been extremley interesting.
Very well explained, it's also very clear that I would want representation, no matter how "Friandly" the chat was. They are the ones with the power and experience - I'm not.
This is the problem with 'Yes' or ' No' questions in court. No time to actually explain your situation.
They don't care about anybody's situation. All they care about is to win their case. Who cares about the truth. When you have a car accident and you are honest and say that it is your fault, your insurance will tell you not to admit fault because they don't like to pay out. They or any of them don't care about honesty just about how much it will cost them. Lead by example, as they say. Insurers are quickly to complain about fraud and send the dogs upon you when they suspect anyone committing fraud. However, it is fine for them to be dishonest.
So what if you've been arrested & then refuse to be interviewed, by staying in the cell & not communicating or playing by their rules? When the 48 hours have elapsed (or whatever it is) you haven't been questioned & they have to let you go, do they not? Would not this put a spanner in the works? Just by the simple act of non compliance. Would this work? You've not made a statement, so what can they do? I've always wondered.
There is no legislation requiring that a suspect be interviewed.
It is considered good practice, and courts expect a suspect to have been given the opportunity to provide an account or explanation.
Some minor offences, such as assault on police or other public order offences, are deemed complete, and so are not usually subject to interview.
If Police consider that the evidence against you provides a prima facie case, and you fail to introduce your defence during interview, then you could well find yourself getting charged or reported for prosecution.
Some suspects do refuse to be interviewed and it never turns out well, if the evidence already garnered against them is compelling.
I remember hearing about a case where the "adverse inferences of silence" couldn't be used because the suspect had refused to leave their cell, was not interviewed and had therefore not "failed to mention ... when questioned". I read something else to suggest that recording equipment can now be brought to a cell if the suspect refuses to leave
It really depends on what evidence they have against you.
We have all seen television programmes where the defendant responds "No comment" to every question put to them and they usually end up being convicted.
@@geordiewishart1683 That's very interesting, but whether the court 'expects' a suspect to have been given the opportunity or not, nobody can twist what was said as nothing was said, nor can anyone infer anything negative as no interview took place. I've learn that you never win in life by playing by someone elses rules. So this seems to me, to be a good game plan - just stay in the cell & say nothing. If as you say an offence is deemed complete, then again, there's little point in participating in any interviews.
@@kryzondaan1855 Can you look for the case. I think it is an interesting topic to cover. Also, whether recording equipment is brought to the cell or not. I don't think a video of someone sleeping in a police cell is ever going to be shown in court. Especially if they wake you & instantly demand an interview. It would appear to be more torture than interview, so they're unlikely to use it I feel.
The singsong way you say..."it may harm your defence"🎶 lol
In the context of a ‘no comment’ interview followed by a defence advanced at trial, the judge can also give the jury an adverse inference direction such that a defendant’s silence in interview may be held against him.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the College of Policing instruct the police, in the event of a complaint, to record people's tweets, even if they are meant to be funny or they are just retweeting and this can be used as antecedent behaviour regarding, for example, an allegation of a hate crime against you or brought up at certain job interviews. I watched a video of an assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police trying to defend the policy and failing miserably. Is it safe to say, think or comment on anything in the UK these days?
Great video as usual! I have one question however:
In the UK police caution, where it says “if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court” - does this refer to the initial police questioning before having a lawyer present, or only to the conversation involving your lawyer (should you choose to have it). Basically - can refusing to answer any questions until you have your lawyer present be used against you? Thanks 😊
That is what is intimated, and probably why the caution was changed, a subtle way of saying you are guilty and have to prove you are innocent
Police can only question you during the formal interview process.
But bear in mind anything you say after caution, which should be done as soon as police suspect an offence, can be introduced in evidence.
But it is not like what is depicted on cop shows, mostly American, whereby you are chatting to police and then the attorney bursts in, telling police to stop the interrogation.
Police will arrest you, caution you, and transport you to the station.
They may strike up conversation but should steer clear of the circs of your arrest as that could be considered an interview and codes of practice do not allow this.
You will be booked into custody and asked if you want to speak to a solicitor. You can normally speak to one on the phone straight away.
You are put in your cell until police are ready to interview you.
If you wanted a solicitor, you are given time to consult with him, in person and in private, before going into the interview room.
You are left in no doubt that it is an interview.
You will never be in a scenario whereby you are talking to police about the incident and not aware it is an interview.
@@geordiewishart1683 I’m talking about when the police first arrive and begin asking you questions. Take the classic “do you know how fast you were going?”, which happens all the time. They clearly don’t begin by reciting the whole caution before they ask you a single question (even though, as you say, they suspect an offence). Police ask questions and then make an arrest with a caution based on that first conversation, before taking you for an “on the books” conversation. It’s that first informal conversation I’m talking about. Can no-commenting that first informal conversation until you speak to a lawyer be held against you?
@@hannahreynolds7611 So if you fail to mention something during your conversation before the caution, which you then bring up after the caution, that can’t be used against you?
@Shea I believe any 'significant statements' said before caution can be recorded by the police (in their PNB (pocket note book). A significant statement can be an unsollicited statement that is capable of being used in evidence against the suspect.
You should be asked to countersign any significant statements, and any significant statement should be put to you in interveiw under caution. If you refuse to sign, or refuse to answer, that should be recorded too.
That would make it PACE compliant, and therefore, there is a possibility of adverse inference being drawn by your refusal to account for the statement.
That's by basic understanding. More knowledgeable viewers may be able to correct me if I'm wrong.
Fascinating stuff...You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t it seems ! One would hope that my last statement is not the case at all but you have certainly opened my eyes with those scenarios. Not having been in any similar situations, are duty solicitors still available at no cost? I suspect that’s the thing to do if a situation arises...
Would highly appreciate your advice in contemporary cases of: 'Justice for me but NOT FOR THEE'.
Just remember this fact. If you are being interviewed under caution or not, the cops are on a fishing trip to see watch they can catch you out on. Have your solicitor present not an appointed one,
And make a pre-interview statement, then, only answer questions your brief tells you that you can answer.
While I comprehend your advice how many people have a personal solicitor they can contact in the 5 mins the police will allow you for a phone call?
@@barrieshepherd7694 They have 24 hrs to keep you, unless they they ask for more time. In your one phone call, speak to whoever you trust to get the ball rolling to get a solicitor present, refuse to make any comment until your brief is present, this might take 2hrs or 12, it doesn't matter.
@Trixie K I think we need to sum this up, we are arriving at the same conclusion, don't say anything that's going to incriminate you, keep to what your brief tells you to do.
No
I guess the answer to this dilemma is to say nothing until you have spoken to a solicitor and with their help provide the cops with a statement.
The first example given, where a friend or in my case a family member lends you something. Then falls out with you and decides to do you wrong by reporting that you have stollen then item borrowed. Well that happened to me once. But I hadn't had it for months. I only had it a day and a half.
The sentence "it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned..." is conflicting with the sentence "you have the right to remain silent", because, as the barrister just explained, you can harm your defense by the sole fact of remaining silent. Am I missing something? I sure hope I am.
Not really.
No you do have a right to do a lot of things (through right is an Americanism more often or not something is legal or not legal) but that doesn't mean there won't be consequences for doing them
@@jons9721 I understand the the right to remain silent still stands, only that you must be willing to suffer the consequences of exercising that right. But the 2 concepts, although not strictly contradictory, are still conflicting with each other. It is like a form of coercion to talk, because "you may harm your defense" otherwise. And that in itself makes it an unjust law (IMHO). Again, I am not a lawyer and I believe (or rather hope) that I may be missing something obvious.
@@silviafarfan2523 You have a right to call your boss whatever you want (free speech) he has a right to sack you for it. You will not be found guilty by a judge for staying silent it's the jury that does that who aren't part of the government.
You have a right to say ' I didn't do it but the guy deserves to get his head kicked in' and the jury can use that against you. A right not to say anything stupid?
As for coercion isn't that the police job within reason?
@@jons9721 yes, we know that the police use coercion and even trickery (seen it happen in real life). But the law should not be written as an instrument to that coercion. The spirit of the law has nothing to do with the honest or dishonest acts of the police to get what they want. In fact the law should be a constraint for the police to respect the rights of people, not a weapon to violate them.
My decision making is driven in these circumstances by the quickest path to getting me on my way.
Several years ago when I was a student, I used to work in a pub chain that had 2 outlets across the street from each other. On very busy nights, booze would run out in one location and you would have to nip out across the road to grab some stock. One new years, I was stopped on my way back by 2 policemen while holding a box of Jagermeisters. "Why have you got these?! You're drinking on the street and causing antisocial behaviour". The notherner in me simply said "Wot?" My manager, seeing what was going on came out and just yelled "he's working" and that was that, they walked off like nothing happened. I was left a bit perplexed because I was clearly in my work uniform, but it is what it is.
If you are ever questioned under caution, lawyer up immediately. Then when they ask you questions, you reply "my lawyer advises me to remain silent" and then they cannot cast aspersions on your reasons for staying quiet in court; you were simply following lawyers advice.
Can your lawyer then be asked why did you advise your client to remain silent?
Which bit of '...but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in Court' do you not understand?
Advice from a lawyer is just advice.
And police can most surely question your reasons for staying quiet, even if you do say it is the advice of your solicitor
@@vatsmith8759 well, it may. But by getting your lawyer in early, you are shielded from the accusation you were holding back to buy time and get your story straight. It might be true but they can't prove that. Refusal to answer questions may well still harm your defence but not as much. If you are innocent your lawyer will find out what evidence they have and then probably advise you to talk.
Jons, no, a judge will not ask a lawyer why he advised his client to remain silent, but he can criticise that tactic in court.
Imagine a scenario whereby police have a seemingly good case against a suspect and he refuses to answer questions during interview.
In court, he then introduces a defence which totally undermines the prosecution case.
The judge can, and has, criticised the suspect and defence teams for not answering police questions in such instances.
Despite what you read here, police do not look to fit people up.
But if they have information or evidence which suggests you are culpable, even if it transpires to be mistaken identity etc, and you fail to help yourself, then what else can police do but conclude your guilt?
This is where the US does it so much better. In the US, "you have the right to remain silent". There is no "but"; it is an absolute right.
You cannot ever be punished for using your first amendment right to free speech and silence is a form of free speech. I am disappointed in our country for not upholding these basic human rights.
You can of course be punished for speech just not by the government whether its 'free' or not. A judge is not making a decision based on you keeping silent the jury is who are not part of the government
Absolute right to silence exists in Scotland
@@geordiewishart1683 Scotland literally has hate speech laws thanks to the SNP and people get arrested and fined for their speech all the time.
The US lacks the Police and criminal and evidence act 1984, sure there is a warrant system, but the US system is overwhelmingly corrupt compared to England& wales police structure.
Thank You.
I've got my former friends lawn mower which he loaned to me over 18 months ago . He reported that I'd stolen it at the local Police station while explaining who'd got it and why, and they gave him a 'crime number' 😅😅
I have given quite a few statements to the police over the years from incidents when I worked in the licensing industry.
The "translation" process is hilarious. You say one thing, then the officer transcribes that it into a much shorter version, entirely contorted around the alleged crime, and what might be useful evidence. They essentially massage what you say to fit the potential court proceedings. Its quite funny when its being done for you, to help convict some violent bastard who punched your doorman. Im not sure I would feel the same if I was on the receiving end and entirely innocent.
In all fairness though, whilst doing the same job, one of my guys broke the law for failing to register for a license and not telling me. He caught himself in a catch 22 where he couldnt rectify the situation without announcing his guilt and like an idiot he let the situation get out of hand. He was a great worker, I needed him, so I stood by him when this all came out (after a few good bollockings) The police visited several times, we talked under caution, without a solicitor, hid nothing and confessed to the entire situation 100% honestly. Everyone gave statements and we were caught bang to rights.
... They didnt prosecute either of us, they gave him a good telling off, sent him off to get licensed, and thanked both of us for our honesty, and no charges, fines or offences were registered.
Maybe it was just that they were so used to venues lying to the cops, whether it was we were just in good standing, or because I stood by the guy regardless of his actions in this one instance. It might even have been because they didnt like the guy who grassed him up. But in all fairness to the Police, we threw ourselves on their mercy, and the situation worked out better than we could expect.
When I disturbed burglars at my mother in laws and set about wrecking their getaway vehicle with a hearth poker the policeman who took my statement was very sympathetic and helped me to word my statement so that I did not incriminate myself. Obviously this does not fit with the general tone of this message board but it happens to be true.
@@tomvalentine4928 Haha nice to know there are good souls out there mate.
Never ever ever talk to the police
Every conversation is official and no conversation will benefit you . Every conversation is a conversation which contributes to you being prosecuted.
Thanks for the good information
Interested in a video on job references and qualified privilege, it’s pretty straight forward but the SAR to get copies of references is hit or miss, really interesting for the general public as most people have jobs but don’t understand what your employer can and cannot legally do
This video has been hanging about on UA-cam for years being recommended on various Reddit threads. I've always wished there was a UK reaction to it to contrast it with British law: ua-cam.com/video/d-7o9xYp7eE/v-deo.html
Never been, or likely to be, in trouble with Police, but that video is really fascinating.
Never say never.
@@teresaspensley5640 I said that before opening your reply.
Excellent .One of the best BBB videos for a while. More please.
Thanks! If only more people watched! It ranked 10/10 🤦♂️
I would always go with the second option no one really talks about, ask for the question in writing and answer the questions later in writing.... and yes that is a legal option
We have a serious issue with trust in the Police nowadays, the situation is not unsalvageable but the Police have a dire track record of late. The problem is they operate on the 'path of least resistance' from within a bubble rather than doing what is morally or legally right. They seem to have lost sight of the concept of _justice._ Persecuting people for expressing opinions on social media is merely an extension of going after motorists - a convenient and easy way to get the numbers up which is a false metric on how safe they're keeping the public.
The Police serve the Law. They do not, and absolutely must not be allowed to, prosecute justice.
@@pompeymonkey3271 The reason we have a system of laws and justice is to preserve rights, liberties and safety in a society. A Police force is an expression of will to have this upheld. Policing in Britain nowadays does not seem to represent that. It persecutes. It is outrageous that if I beat a burglar to within an inch of his life - I get in trouble, and the sack of shit gets compensation for breaking into the wrong house.
@@headshot6959 and that is why you are not a barrister.
2020 to 2022 Opened the Eyes of the British Public when it comes to the Police....many would now say that a Police Uniform or Warrant card does not mean the wearer or holder is any more Honourable, Moral, Trustworthy or Law Abiding than Anyone else...and the recent reports by HMI of Constabularies and Baroness Casey on Britain's Police did nothing to ease any concerns the Public may have.
After swearing on oath to tell the whole truth, what should a witness do when stopped from completing the answer wholly? Only seen in the movies, but it seems to lead to the question providing an ambiguous or unintended answer.
That's why I like that part of the American system, where up to the trial nobody, apart from the judge can make you talk and if you stay silent it won't (or shouldn't) negatively affect you
BBB do you ever read the comments and consider that perhaps the majority of your audience aren’t particularly bright?
If you get arrested by the police, they say do you understand, this means do you contract me to have power over you ? You should reply, NO I do not understand, I do not contract to stand under you. You are not dealing with a corporate entity. I do not consent to what you are doing and I do not contract with you !
No they don't? They say along the lines of "You're under arrest for x/suspicion of x, you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defense. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
These rights MUST be communicated to a suspect. No permission needs to be given.
Imagine thinking this works. Blinkered.
@@j.jbinks9669 They usually add the caveat "Do you understand?" at the end of reading you your 'rights' which means that they are trying to enter into a contract with you.
Lol sov cuts are funny
Utter nonsense