It is Rog, just a little bit of advice from the “horses mouth” so to speak, for future referance in case it’s needed?
If there is no caution, then does the same right still apply?
Multi Dropper:
If there is no caution, then does the same right still apply?
Anything that was said would not be legally admissable and it may make the arrest itself ‘invalid’ but not sure about the ‘invalid’ bit
ROG:
Anything that was said would not be legally admissable and it may make the arrest itself ‘invalid’ but not sure about the ‘invalid’ bit
The only thing inadmissible by Police/VOSA is any ‘questioning’ in relation to the suspected offence which they may have conducted prior to them cautioning you, for example, if you shouted in a cops face “[zb] YOU PIG” this would be admissable by the officer as it forms no part of any questioning process.
Similarly, an arrest is lawful with or without being cautioned as this will always be repeated to the arrested person upon arrival at police custody.
Multi Dropper:
Carryfast:
att:
Thanks guys, it took 24 hours, but we got there.
Thats all I wanted to know.So in reality we do not have the right to remain silent, we are forced into communicating with these officials and that means(in legal speak) that you are being forced into entering into a contract
And before anyone pipes up, no I do not run bent, nor do I have any serious infringements on my card, I always do the job to the book, or as much as I know of the book…I am not perfect.
So absolute power it is then and we all know what absolute power does
Can this country become any more worse than what it is right now?? JUst what rights do we have left I wonder…I am begining to think none, zero, nada, not a one…
It’s not much different to what we’ve always had because when a copper reads you the caution it’s always been a case of you have the right to remain silent but it could harm your defence if you do.But at least with the coppers you can choose to remain silent until a defence solicitor is present.But we’ve never had the fifth amendment here like the yanks have.
The following statement comes from a reliable (Police) source…
The clue is in the FIRST SEVEN words of the caution I.E “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?
In other words, if you’ve nothing to say, then don’t! Not without first getting legal representation anyway. And it means just what it says, say NOTHING after the caution is given…
As I said, this comes from a VERY good source.
The right to silence is still very much alive.
Exactly but that is the issue because the question of verbal evidence often works against the interests of the accused which is why the yanks brought in the fifth amendment.The right to remain silent has always been very much alive here but the difference is there’s no real protection against that silence being prejudicial to the defence’s case in many cases once it all ends up in court.The situation here is that if the acccused excercises that right then it could,in the eyes of a jury, cast doubt on the accused’s case ?.It may not be so relevant in the case of most vosa stops but in the event of a major road accident in which a worried driver finds himself on the wrong side of a prosecution then saying the wrong or mistaken thing,even after the caution,in the mistaken belief that he’s helping the case and the investigation but maybe mistakenly incriminating himself to do so,could result in an innocent party going to jail for a crime which never actually existed.In the states once the fifth has been invoked then any verbal evidence in question has to be struck from the record and if the defence’s case is considered as being prejudiced by the use of the plea then a new jury can be called.That’s what I call the right to silence.
I think it boils down to the simple fact we have two ears and one mouth and in some situations is best to use them in that ratio, or use the two a lot more than the one.
I did not think that VOSA gave a legal caution so whatever is said, especially on a 1 to 1 basis is unlikely to have any legal credence - I stand to be corrected…
Let me clarify some points for you.
The caution should only be given following an alledged offence (for which you are about to be questioned). there does not need to be an arrest, merely an alledged offence ( you can now be arrested for any offence though, no matter how trivial).
The only time a caution is not given is when its not appropriate to give one eg, sat night in a town centre having just rolled round the floor with some drunk who is too ■■■■■■ to know what is being said and what it means, the caution would simply be given to him along with other rights when he is sober at a later stage before he was spoken too about the said offence,
The caution is not repeated routinely when someone arrives at a police station.
The caution is self explanatory really, you do have the right to say nothing as previously stated, however the second part is also important in that “IT MAY HARM YOUR DEFENCE IF YOU DO NOT MENTION WHEN QUESTIONED SOMETHING WHICH YOU LATER RELY ON IN COURT” (not shouting just for speech purposes) If you say nothing then go to court at a later stage and give reason or explanation, the magistrates or judge may very well ask you why you are now giving reason/excuse that you could have given the police/whoever at the time of alledged offence. They take a dim view of this as you have had a good period of time to make some reason/excuse up since originally questioned.
When questioned about an alledged offence it will be done either in writing (Q & A format) whereby you should be given the opportunity to sign that it is a true account of the conversation (you choice whether you do or not), or if at a police station on tape, where you will be given a form with the tape details.
The role of the police has changed significantly they no longer have the say in relation to charges, it is now literally a case of the police getting both sides of the story and then giving it to cps who decide what happens. It is worth remembering that “NO COMMENT” interviews will usually result in court appearance for the alledged offence no matter what the solicitor says, (defence solicitors used to get paid per court appearance which has now changed to per case. Its amazing how the amount of no comments interviews has now dropped).
Thats’s the police taken care of - how does the law on this relate to VOSA officials 
ROG:
Thats’s the police taken care of - how does the law on this relate to VOSA officials
No idea however as the other goverment agencies (custom, uk border agency etc) take the same approch i would imagine it would be very similar rog…
Greg:
ROG:
Thats’s the police taken care of - how does the law on this relate to VOSA officialsNo idea however as the other goverment agencies (custom, uk border agency etc) take the same approch i would imagine it would be very similar rog…
In the case of a fatal accident where vehicle condition may be alleged to have been the cause?.Such as loss of brakes or similar? where it’s got to be decided as to wether the brakes were defective before the start of the journey and the driver and his employer should have been aware or wether it was a defect which was the result of a seviceable component in outwardly perfect condition failing in the braking system just prior to the accident.That would be a scenario where one wrong word said by the guvnor,maintenance,or driver could mean the difference between an innocent party or parties being convicted of causing the accident or not and in which vosa and the police would be acting together in the prosecution case?.
Greg:
It is worth remembering that “NO COMMENT” interviews will usually result in court appearance for the alledged offence no matter what the solicitor says, (defence solicitors used to get paid per court appearance which has now changed to per case. Its amazing how the amount of no comments interviews has now dropped).
Its also worth remembering that casual answers to questions before a caution do get put before the courts…i.e…
You know why i stopped you, how fast do you think you where travelling?
The answer to that question may land you in court.
Best always to give random answers like…
When did you last check the brakes?
Answer…3 years ago.
That way it infers you did not understand the question and avoids any negative reference to your answers.
Mike-C:
Greg:
It is worth remembering that “NO COMMENT” interviews will usually result in court appearance for the alledged offence no matter what the solicitor says, (defence solicitors used to get paid per court appearance which has now changed to per case. Its amazing how the amount of no comments interviews has now dropped).Its also worth remembering that casual answers to questions before a caution do get put before the courts…i.e…
You know why i stopped you, how fast do you think you where travelling?
The answer to that question may land you in court.
Best always to give random answers like…
When did you last check the brakes?
Answer…3 years ago.
That way it infers you did not understand the question and avoids any negative reference to your answers.
But would you like to bet on being aquitted and your freedom on the possibility that a judge or jury would’nt in fact take that answer literally?.In the type of scenario which I made as a possible example then that answer could put the defence case in a very bad position as it would infer at best that the driver was being delibrately evasive or at worse that is when he did,personally, last bother to checked the brakes?.My answer would be sorry I’m saying nothing until I’ve spoken to a defence solicitor wether you wish to bring charges or not.
Carryfast:
Mike-C:
Greg:
It is worth remembering that “NO COMMENT” interviews will usually result in court appearance for the alledged offence no matter what the solicitor says, (defence solicitors used to get paid per court appearance which has now changed to per case. Its amazing how the amount of no comments interviews has now dropped).Its also worth remembering that casual answers to questions before a caution do get put before the courts…i.e…
You know why i stopped you, how fast do you think you where travelling?
The answer to that question may land you in court.
Best always to give random answers like…
When did you last check the brakes?
Answer…3 years ago.
That way it infers you did not understand the question and avoids any negative reference to your answers.But would you like to bet on being aquitted and your freedom on the possibility that a judge or jury would’nt in fact take that answer literally?.In the type of scenario which I made as a possible example then that answer could put the defence case in a very bad position as it would infer at best that the driver was being delibrately evasive or at worse that is when he did,personally, last bother to checked the brakes?.My answer would be sorry I’m saying nothing until I’ve spoken to a defence solicitor wether you wish to bring charges or not.
I’m assuming some one questioned has a certain level of intelligence to be able to give an appropriate disssapropriate answer. I drive a one year old vehicle so in my case it couldn’t possibly be taken literally that i last checked my brakes 3 years ago. Clever answers are free, defence solicitors are not. You pays your money (or not) and takes your chances!
Mike-C:
Carryfast:
Mike-C:
Greg:
It is worth remembering that “NO COMMENT” interviews will usually result in court appearance for the alledged offence no matter what the solicitor says, (defence solicitors used to get paid per court appearance which has now changed to per case. Its amazing how the amount of no comments interviews has now dropped).Its also worth remembering that casual answers to questions before a caution do get put before the courts…i.e…
You know why i stopped you, how fast do you think you where travelling?
The answer to that question may land you in court.
Best always to give random answers like…
When did you last check the brakes?
Answer…3 years ago.
That way it infers you did not understand the question and avoids any negative reference to your answers.But would you like to bet on being aquitted and your freedom on the possibility that a judge or jury would’nt in fact take that answer literally?.In the type of scenario which I made as a possible example then that answer could put the defence case in a very bad position as it would infer at best that the driver was being delibrately evasive or at worse that is when he did,personally, last bother to checked the brakes?.My answer would be sorry I’m saying nothing until I’ve spoken to a defence solicitor wether you wish to bring charges or not.
I’m assuming some one questioned has a certain level of intelligence to be able to give an appropriate disssapropriate answer. I drive a one year old vehicle so in my case it couldn’t possibly be taken literally that i last checked my brakes 3 years ago. Clever answers are free, defence solicitors are not. You pays your money (or not) and takes your chances!
By that logic someone who’s just been involved in a serious accident in a 60 mph limit driving a Mondeo if then asked how fast he thinks he might have been going would say around 200 mph? and in the case of a brake failure causing a serious accident he’d say that the brakes were last checked 2 years before the vehicle was manufactured.If you can’t blind the jury with intelligence just baffle em with bs who needs an expensive defence solicitor or the fifth amendment.
Tis true, people often do dig themselves deeper into a hole once already in one by saying too much or the wrong thing.
Some years back i used to drink with a JP from time to time. He would often relate to me funny stories of things that had occured in court.
A fairly regular thing was speeders who had insisted on forcing a court appearence.
Lets say they are charged with doing 47mph in a 40 limit. They would then stand up & say they were not doing 47 but only 42.
Lets look at what they just said there in another way: “I admit i was exceeding the posted limit.”
next…
I was once advised that after being cautioned the only thing to say is " I am not refusing to answer your questions but prefer to wait until i have a legal representative present, this is not an admission of any wrongdoing on my part , but simply me excercising my rights under law"
however the chances of me remembering that after a good session are quite remote- so i would go with the old … say nothing until the brief is there.
As VOSA are concerned, Like anybody else they can be called as a witness , and with that they can say with or without caution, "I asked the driver what the wire was there for and he said… go do one " … or whatever. that is admissable in court wether you were cautioned or not. It is the difference between you making a statement, and a witness relaying what they saw/heard. Both are admissable in court… so even if theres no caution and you have been a bit naughty , keeping schtum until you get advice is the best possible course
Greg knows his stuff. 
ROG:
Thats’s the police taken care of - how does the law on this relate to VOSA officials
Exactly the same. Initially brought in under the P.A.C.E. Act. Which places upon anyone with investigative responsibility, the same obligations. Whether they be Environmental Health, Trading Standards, RSPCA, NSPCC, or your local Dog Warden, to name but a few.
Whilst much has been made of the requirement to Caution in relation to an ‘alleged offence’, the requirement actually comes into the frame when ‘there is suspicion of an offence having been committed’. A subtle, but important, difference.
The former intimates that the offence in question has been identified. The latter does not.
For example. Consider a typical 4x4 being stopped in a rural setting and there being signs of blood in the rear. Perhaps it could be someone ‘bumping off’ old dears (note spelling). Similarly, it could be a prolific poacher. On the other hand it could be a farmer who culls his own sheep/pigs/goats for the home freezer. The ‘suspicion’ (and hence the need for a Caution) does not arise until the person in question becomes evasive or fails to answer questions reasonably asked.
And it is only after the third scenario (or other viable explanation) has been discounted that the first and second would come into consideration. At which stage, the nature of an ‘offence’, of whatever category, would be decidedly uncertain. Hence, whilst a Caution would become appropriate, the ‘offence’ has yet to be identified.