January 21 2022

Extreme caution

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on twitter

Extreme caution

‘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. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’

Fairly straightforward you may think, but what does it actually mean? This is the wording of the caution which must be given to a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence before they are questioned. Failing to do so could mean that any answers given to those questions might be excluded from being used as evidence against that person.

As a lawyer advising arrested persons in the police station on a daily basis, explaining what this caution actually means is the most important aspect of my role. I have to find a way of explaining it to the very young, the very elderly, the mentally disordered, persons for whom English is not their first language, and sometimes its a very difficult task. Sometimes, it’s impossible, and that’s the driving force behind why I do my job.

This is how I explain what those words mean to my clients… bear with me as it’s quite involved, but vital that my clients understand so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to answer questions in their interview.

Like the Forth Bridge

I don’t tell my clients what to do or say (regardless of what the police think), I give them all the information and it’s for them to make the final decision, as it’s one they may have to feel comfortable with for a long time to come.  ‘You don’t have to answer the questions, you can remain entirely silent if you wish, or reply ”no comment”. This is because you are entitled to have the case proven against you, you do not have to convict yourself by your own words. But, if you have a defence (and I will advise you if you do), you should consider putting forward that defence now. If you do not, and your case goes to Court, and the first time you mention your defence is in Court, then the magistrate is entitled to think, or the judge is entitled to tell the jury, why is that? Wouldn’t an innocent person want to tell the police at the first opportunity that they were innocent? And they might think that you’ve made up that defence in the meantime, and that what you’re saying is not true. You are perhaps less likely to be believed if the first time you mention your defence is in Court.’

Quite wordy, isn’t it? A bit like the Forth Bridge in that by the time I’ve got to the end I need to go back and explain the first part again. The trouble with this caution is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code C 10d) says that if appears it that a person does not understand the caution, the person giving it should explain it in their own words. In practice, the caution is always broken down and explained by the interviewing officer, however, there is no standardised form of wording for that explanation, and many officers get it wrong, wrong enough to completely change the meaning.

They often imply that if a suspect refuses to answer questions in their interview, and gives an explanation in court, the court is likely to decide that they were dishonest, not ‘may’ come to that conclusion. At this point of course it is necessary for me to apply the correct interpretation. I don’t say all these officers are deliberately being disingenuous, but I do find it incredible that they do not receive better, and ongoing training.

It’s there for a reason, officer

You may wonder why I make a fuss over the precise wording. The interview can be a highly charged situation with all the odds stacked in the favour of the police. The detainee may be vulnerable, withdrawing from drink or drugs, injured, scared, and inevitably desperate to be released from custody. They may have pressures not admitted to, fear of co-defendants, or of what the police or their families may think about the circumstances leading to their arrest. They may be vulnerable in unseen ways, with personality disorders which make them overly liable to confess, or wish to ‘please’ their interrogators by agreeing to suggestions. So yes, I am picky about the wording of something which might amount to a pressure to confess, upon people who are not able to withstand that pressure. If the powers that be didn’t want suspects to be allowed to remain silent, they wouldn’t have left it in the legislation. It’s there for a reason, officer.

My next blog discusses the decision making process behind whether to speak in interview or remain silent,  and the benefits and disadvantages of doing so.


7 responses to “Extreme caution”

  1. Pljones60 says:

    Frequently police officers will break the caution down into its three constituent parts then ask the suspect to explain it back, “Just so I can be sure you understand”. More often than not the client will freeze up at that point. May be the cause is my failing as an adviser to explain in consultation (notwithstanding adopting a very similar method to Kim). May be the problem is with the explanation given by the officer (sadly, you often get the feeling that he or she is close but there is just something missing). My view is that the real problem is with the caution itself. It contains three concepts that are at then same time distinct and overlapping. A person who is under stress will understandably lose the ability to rationalise several concepts at once.

    I remember one occasion when an officer had several goes at explaining the caution. Nothing appeared to be sinking in. The officer clearly reached the point when, somewhat exasperated, he just wanted to move on. Turning to me he asked, “Does your client understand the caution, Mr Jones?” The look on his face said, “Please say yes”. My response? “Officer, I have absolutely no idea”. He turned to the suspect, “Do you understand?” “Yes” came the reply. Oh no he didn’t.

  2. […] Kim Evans continues her advice in the police station by giving you the low down on the caution HERE. Tweet !function(d,s,id){var […]

  3. ajh says:

    I think you are quite right as one of the issues here is the level of training that police officers receive in ‘interviewing techniques’. I have read the article on the Cardiff 3 and I agree with the final comments that justice ‘will not be found here’. I would hope that police interviewing has moved on from those ‘Life on Mars’ days…. However, reading about your experiences, I don’t think it can be said that all is rosy in the garden… just yet.

    In my experience of training interview techniques, there are times when the caution is explained incorrectly by officers… e.g. ‘If you don’t say anything now or change your story when you get to court…… then the court will think you are telling lies’. As you, my advice is always to keep it simple and break it down into 3 parts as the other commentator states. As you quite rightly point out, if the suspect does not answer questions or they change their account the court may question the reason why……

    Officers should be trained as per the ACPO Interviewing Strategy and the 7 principles of Investigating Interviewing. However, with the austerity measures affecting all the police forces, I cannot see an expansion in this area of essential.training.

    ‘Interrogators’ and ‘pressure to confess’ I would hope are terms more often used to describe techniques once used by DCI Gene Hunt

  4. SARA SMITH says:

    My English teacher said never start a sentence with the word “but”.

  5. Usman says:

    I had made an immigration application. Immigration officials made an announced visit to my house. They interviewed me in the house explained caution to me. I was taken to police station for a formal interview but it never came to that point. But my application was denied. I have since applied under different category.

    My question is whether they can secretly record my video or audio under ” anything you may say may be presented as evidence against you” when they interviewed my in my house. If I were to go to court of appeal and change my story would they have been able to provide recordings to prove that I told a different story before?

  6. Peter O'Kelly says:

    A decent solicitor would tell their client to exercise their right of silence, instead of using nefarious tactics to get them to go into court. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by talking to the police and everything to lose. The cops will twist what you say and use every trick they can to get a conviction.

    “If the powers that be didn’t want suspects to be allowed to remain silent, they wouldn’t have left it in the legislation.”

    Legislation cannot override common law, that’s why it’s in, as if the system is fair?

  7. Justin says:

    What I find interesting is that the statement is grammatically confusing. The word ‘which’ indicates that the following clause can be removed without removing the core meaning. If you remove the words after it you have “You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something.” That means you have to mention every single thing you know, have experienced, the entire contents of the dictionary, Wikipedia, the Internet, the sum of all of mankind’s knowledge and data and beyond. No individual is capable of that.

    Secondly, “Anything you say” doesn’t have the pronoun. Is it ‘that’ or ‘which’? Again, the meaning varies significantly. If it is ‘which’ then it means ‘Anything can be given be in evidence’, even the ‘Meaning of Life the Universe and Everything = 42’.

    Thirdly, ‘Rely on later in court’. Later means ‘in a few hours while still today’. Therefore the entire statement is only valid if you go to Court the same day. For dates post-today it must be ‘Afterwards’ which then allows ‘Afterthoughts’.

    The whole caution is intended to intimidate and essentially place the onus on the suspect to provide their entire defence there and then at the police station without even seeing the evidence against them or being shown the legfislation wording. Solicitors certainly don’t know the precise wording of every statute so how the police do, I will never understand. The officer responsible then becomes judge and jury, there and then, making a recommendation to the ‘Gate Keeper’ who only hears the evidence summed up subjectively. The Gate Keeper doesn’t even see the suspect or ask any questions himself. Yet he is the one to determine if a charge is to be brought. In that case Justice is not seen to be done. It is carried out blindly and in darkness.

    It’s a farce of a system. It’s a nonsense. And when you know that you can run rings around it.

Related Posts