You do not have to say anything but...

[DavyCrocket]

It's not a requirement to ask the person after Caution if they understand.
Their reply to Caution should be noted.

Can we please at least use the correct phraseology, the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) requires that the investigating officer 'cautions' the 'suspect'.

The phrase 'read you your rights' is American jargon that doesn't appear in this UK legislation.




As you rightly point out, the RPI will have cautioned the 'suspect' once s/he suspects that an offence is evident. This is a requirement of the P.A.C.E. Codes of Practice, which states the caution will be in the following terms:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something that you may later rely on in Court. Anything that you do say may be given in evidence."

The person speaking the caution will also ask, "Do you understand?" There can be no doubt what that phrase explains.

That spoken caution has then already advised the person being questioned that the correct time to give an explanation there and then. That is, 'when questioned' whilst under caution, which also advises that not to do so, may be damaging to their defence.

Of course the person being questioned may choose to answer 'no comment' as some suggest, but cannot then be certain that his/her action in doing so will not prove damaging to any defence offered later.

DaveNewcastle is right of course, Tibbs and others may persist with their own flawed logic, but the caution is very clear in its' meaning and all that we can do is hope that anyone who has read this thread and who might be stopped and questioned under caution in the future does understand exactly what that means for them.

 

[Tibbs]

Well, no it isn't.

It depends on whether you have a valid ticket or not.

If you have, then answer the questions and all will be well.

If you haven't, you take a big chance on being prosecuted. The likelihood of a more lenient disposal fades very quickly if you are unhelpful during the interview/investigation process. A successful prosecution can leave you liable to pay a fine, a victim surcharge and prosecution costs. I'd say around a monkey* would be a good bet in total (though it could be more or it could be less).

So, how much is it worth to you to give a "no comment" interview?



* that's £500

If you work on the prevailing view here that all rail staff are angels in waiting, fearlessly protecting revenue so that the extra revenue could be passed onto the general public in decreased fares then yes, I'd agree with you.

However, we know that they not all good eggs (q.f. ticket checks after a hidden ticket office, Blackburn station, staff lying about guns etc etc) and it's those people you have to be very wary of.

As for the question - would I rather pay £500 or pay more and get a criminal record? I'll pay the £500, thanks. As you say, if you have a valid ticket, you have nothing to worry about. IT's when you're caught out that you have to be careful.

Given that TOCs seem to be moving away from PFs and onto out of court settlements, there's even less to gain from answering questions.

 

[Fare-Cop]

It's not a requirement to ask the person after Caution if they understand.
Their reply to Caution should be noted.

Absolutely correct, but well-trained staff will be instructed to ask in order to be sure that the person they are speaking to is sure of what is happening!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

When cautioned (railway or otherwise) are you allowed to respond along the lines of "I'm not sure what is happening, I'm confused about what is happening, I need time think, I need to sit down or even, I need to take advice because I don't understand the potential consequences of any answer that I may give."

Secondly, can a person, there and then, and before responding to any questions, ask to see a copy of the relevent regulations and guidance? If nothing else it buys you time to get your heart rate down and your head straighter. The RPI (ought) to know the regulations inside out, Joe Public doesn't. A level playing field does not exist. Although it may put you down as a smarta##e in the eyes of the RPI and put his back up, any decision to prosecute wil not be taken by the RPI but by the prosecutions department when in possession of both sides of the story - written versions.

Hold your tongue until your head is straight surely? When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Seeking advice before answering a question on a subject you know little about is always sound practice, especially so when the outcome is potenitally so serious (criminal record / prison). Blabbing away the first thing that comes into your head in an attempt to appear helpful often has the opposite consquence - as can be seen by the many pleas for help on this board - all after the event.

Your seasoned criminal knows this, that's why they say 'no comment', not simply because it gives them a chance to concoct an alibi but because they know there are loopholes, nuances, interpretations, to anything they say - their lawyer knows this and advises appropriately. There's little point having advice once you've given the game away at the initial 'arrest'. Inference may well be drawn to your initial 'no comment', but, if you are fully co-operative at a later stage i.e. when questioned in the police station, then your lawyer will offer a good reason for your initial silence.

I have never been cautioned / arrested but, I do know that when put under pressure, and an instant answer is demanded, that I say things wrongly. Not that I haven't had chance to think up a good excuse / reason, more that I use the wrong words which, to a clever d##k RPI, are the opening of the golden gates to proscecution.

Finally, am I right in thinking that any answer given prior to the caution being given is not admissable at all.

 

[DavyCrocket]

Once arrested the police don't ask questions until at interview under caution. If the person sat arts talking about the offence then they are reminded of the caution and it can be broken down to help them.

Like with tickets there are times (such as a traffic offence or a disposal via penalty notice) where the now caution is given.

When cautioned (railway or otherwise) are you allowed to respond along the lines of "I'm not sure what is happening, I'm confused about what is happening, I need time think, I need to sit down or even, I need to take advice because I don't understand the potential consequences of any answer that I may give."

Secondly, can a person, there and then, and before responding to any questions, ask to see a copy of the relevent regulations and guidance? If nothing else it buys you time to get your heart rate down and your head straighter. The RPI (ought) to know the regulations inside out, Joe Public doesn't. A level playing field does not exist. Although it may put you down as a smarta##e in the eyes of the RPI and put his back up, any decision to prosecute wil not be taken by the RPI but by the prosecutions department when in possession of both sides of the story - written versions.

Hold your tongue until your head is straight surely? When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Seeking advice before answering a question on a subject you know little about is always sound practice, especially so when the outcome is potenitally so serious (criminal record / prison). Blabbing away the first thing that comes into your head in an attempt to appear helpful often has the opposite consquence - as can be seen by the many pleas for help on this board - all after the event.

Your seasoned criminal knows this, that's why they say 'no comment', not simply because it gives them a chance to concoct an alibi but because they know there are loopholes, nuances, interpretations, to anything they say - their lawyer knows this and advises appropriately. There's little point having advice once you've given the game away at the initial 'arrest'. Inference may well be drawn to your initial 'no comment', but, if you are fully co-operative at a later stage i.e. when questioned in the police station, then your lawyer will offer a good reason for your initial silence.

I have never been cautioned / arrested but, I do know that when put under pressure, and an instant answer is demanded, that I say things wrongly. Not that I haven't had chance to think up a good excuse / reason, more that I use the wrong words which, to a clever d##k RPI, are the opening of the golden gates to proscecution.

Finally, am I right in thinking that any answer given prior to the caution being given is not admissable at all.

 

[cjmillsnun]

When cautioned (railway or otherwise) are you allowed to respond along the lines of "I'm not sure what is happening, I'm confused about what is happening, I need time think, I need to sit down or even, I need to take advice because I don't understand the potential consequences of any answer that I may give."

Secondly, can a person, there and then, and before responding to any questions, ask to see a copy of the relevent regulations and guidance? If nothing else it buys you time to get your heart rate down and your head straighter. The RPI (ought) to know the regulations inside out, Joe Public doesn't. A level playing field does not exist. Although it may put you down as a smarta##e in the eyes of the RPI and put his back up, any decision to prosecute wil not be taken by the RPI but by the prosecutions department when in possession of both sides of the story - written versions.

Hold your tongue until your head is straight surely? When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Seeking advice before answering a question on a subject you know little about is always sound practice, especially so when the outcome is potenitally so serious (criminal record / prison). Blabbing away the first thing that comes into your head in an attempt to appear helpful often has the opposite consquence - as can be seen by the many pleas for help on this board - all after the event.

Your seasoned criminal knows this, that's why they say 'no comment', not simply because it gives them a chance to concoct an alibi but because they know there are loopholes, nuances, interpretations, to anything they say - their lawyer knows this and advises appropriately. There's little point having advice once you've given the game away at the initial 'arrest'. Inference may well be drawn to your initial 'no comment', but, if you are fully co-operative at a later stage i.e. when questioned in the police station, then your lawyer will offer a good reason for your initial silence.

I have never been cautioned / arrested but, I do know that when put under pressure, and an instant answer is demanded, that I say things wrongly. Not that I haven't had chance to think up a good excuse / reason, more that I use the wrong words which, to a clever d##k RPI, are the opening of the golden gates to proscecution.

Finally, am I right in thinking that any answer given prior to the caution being given is not admissable at all.

No comment at a police interview is likely to incriminate you if you then give a defence at court.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

No comment at a police interview is likely to incriminate you if you then give a defence at court.

But that is the crucial difference, the police caution you (and arrest you), cart you off to the local nick, then question you with your legal representative present. Your legal representative tells you to shut up if you start incriminating yourself. No comment is what the police, effectively, are telling you to do if you try talking about the situation between caution / arrest and later interview under caution - which is of course tape recorded to prove what wasn't said. The RPI however do their interview on the spot, you do not have any representation, and depending upon his verbatim note taking skills, is not properly recorded. As many people on the 'disputes and prosecutions' thread have found to their cost they have already incriminated themselves.

Hence this thread - do you say nothing or do you tell all?

 

[martybabes]

No comment at a police interview is likely to incriminate you if you then give a defence at court.

No, not incriminate. The court may infer from a "no comment" interview. A subtle difference maybe but a difference nonetheless.