Just watching Street Crime UK, and noticed an officer threaten to
arrest a guy for swearing. Fair enough. The lad then refuses to
identify himself, and is arrested. However, the officer simply says
"You're under arrest" before 3-4 officers converge on him to bundle
him into the van. He is never given the proper caution.

Does this make the arrest invalid? What difference does that "you do
not have to say anything..." bit actually make in terms of a later
prosecution?

Incidentally, the chap refused a fixed penalty, and opted for his day
in court instead.

On Aug 15, 3:35 pm, TimB wrote:
Just watching Street Crime UK, and noticed an officer threaten to
arrest a guy for swearing. Fair enough. The lad then refuses to
identify himself, and is arrested. However, the officer simply says
"You're under arrest" before 3-4 officers converge on him to bundle
him into the van. He is never given the proper caution.

Does this make the arrest invalid? What difference does that "you do
not have to say anything..." bit actually make in terms of a later
prosecution?

I think (but IANAL) that it just means whatever the accused says (or
fails to say) between arrest and caution cannot be used in evidence in
a court case.

Incidentally, the chap refused a fixed penalty, and opted for his day
in court instead.

TimB wrote:

However, the officer simply says "You're under arrest" before 3-4 officers
converge on him to bundle him into the van. He is never given the proper
caution.

How do you know? The TV footage is clearly edited and they may simply
have edited out the caution.

Martin Bonner wrote in news:64073138-e37b-49ed-
:

Does this make the arrest invalid? What difference does that "you do
not have to say anything..." bit actually make in terms of a later
prosecution?

I think (but IANAL) that it just means whatever the accused says (or
fails to say) between arrest and caution cannot be used in evidence in
a court case.

Essentially correct, (under current law not necessarily in place when the
clip was filmed), the person should be told that they are under arrest and
as soon as practicable be told what offence they are alleged to have
committed, the grounds for the arrest, why it is necessary to arrest them
(this is a new bit) and be cautioned (if they hadn't already been shortly
prior to arrest).

"As soon as practicable" is obviously dependent on the particular
circumstances exisiting at the time of arrest. Likewsie lack of caution
will not necessarily render any comment made by the alleged offender
inadmissable. Also what is and what is not a caution is open to question
again depending on circumstances. In one particular case, "****ing keep
your mouth shut" (or it might have been "Don't say a ****ing word") was
held to be a properly administered caution.

--

Regards,

Periander

In message
,
Martin Bonner writes
On Aug 15, 3:35 pm, TimB wrote:
Just watching Street Crime UK, and noticed an officer threaten to
arrest a guy for swearing. Fair enough. The lad then refuses to
identify himself, and is arrested. However, the officer simply says
"You're under arrest" before 3-4 officers converge on him to bundle
him into the van. He is never given the proper caution.

Does this make the arrest invalid? What difference does that "you do
not have to say anything..." bit actually make in terms of a later
prosecution?

I think (but IANAL) that it just means whatever the accused says (or
fails to say) between arrest and caution cannot be used in evidence in
a court case.

My understanding is that unless the caution is given at the earliest
possible opportunity after arrest, then the detention becomes unlawful.
--
Richard Miller

On 15 Aug, 18:35, (Steve Firth) wrote:
TimB wrote:
However, the officer simply says "You're under arrest" before 3-4 officers
converge on him to bundle him into the van. He is never given the proper
caution.

How do you know? The TV footage is clearly edited and they may simply
have edited out the caution.

Indeed, but there was constant footage from a single camera, with no
visible cuts between the time he was told "You'll be arrested if you
swear again" to the time he was bundled into the van, so unless there
was some very clever editing, he wasn't cautioned before he got to the
station.

"TimB" wrote in message
...
Just watching Street Crime UK, and noticed an officer threaten to
arrest a guy for swearing. Fair enough. The lad then refuses to
identify himself, and is arrested. However, the officer simply says
"You're under arrest" before 3-4 officers converge on him to bundle
him into the van. He is never given the proper caution.

Does this make the arrest invalid?

No. Of course not.
The caution (and indeed the very fact that they are under arrest) should be
given as soon as is reasonably practicable , and if someone is kicking off
there's no point being legally obliged to shout it at him.
It's very common for people to be arrested , chucked in a van , and then
cautioned once the fighting is over and done by.

What difference does that "you do
not have to say anything..." bit actually make in terms of a later
prosecution?

Very little.
Anything said before the caution is given *can* be treated differently by
the court but they will also take into account why the caution hadn't yet
been given.


Incidentally, the chap refused a fixed penalty, and opted for his day
in court instead.

Often a good gamble as there's a chance the magistrates will find you not
guilty in spite of the good evidence , or that the police and cps cock
things up


--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

"Periander" wrote in message
...
Martin Bonner wrote in news:64073138-e37b-49ed-
:

Does this make the arrest invalid? What difference does that "you do
not have to say anything..." bit actually make in terms of a later
prosecution?

I think (but IANAL) that it just means whatever the accused says (or
fails to say) between arrest and caution cannot be used in evidence in
a court case.

Essentially correct, (under current law not necessarily in place when the
clip was filmed), the person should be told that they are under arrest and
as soon as practicable be told what offence they are alleged to have
committed, the grounds for the arrest, why it is necessary to arrest them
(this is a new bit) and be cautioned (if they hadn't already been shortly
prior to arrest).

"As soon as practicable" is obviously dependent on the particular
circumstances exisiting at the time of arrest. Likewsie lack of caution
will not necessarily render any comment made by the alleged offender
inadmissable. Also what is and what is not a caution is open to question
again depending on circumstances. In one particular case, "****ing keep
your mouth shut" (or it might have been "Don't say a ****ing word") was
held to be a properly administered caution.

Yep , the caution doesn't need to be given in the exact prescribed method as
long as the important points are conveyed to the person under arrest



--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

"TimB" wrote in message
...
On 15 Aug, 18:35, (Steve Firth) wrote:
TimB wrote:
However, the officer simply says "You're under arrest" before 3-4
officers
converge on him to bundle him into the van. He is never given the
proper
caution.

How do you know? The TV footage is clearly edited and they may simply
have edited out the caution.

Indeed, but there was constant footage from a single camera, with no
visible cuts between the time he was told "You'll be arrested if you
swear again" to the time he was bundled into the van, so unless there
was some very clever editing, he wasn't cautioned before he got to the
station.


Did they show the whole drive to the station then?

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:00:56 +0100, Richard Miller
wrote:

In message
,
Martin Bonner writes
On Aug 15, 3:35 pm, TimB wrote:
Just watching Street Crime UK, and noticed an officer threaten to
arrest a guy for swearing. Fair enough. The lad then refuses to
identify himself, and is arrested. However, the officer simply says
"You're under arrest" before 3-4 officers converge on him to bundle
him into the van. He is never given the proper caution.

Does this make the arrest invalid? What difference does that "you do
not have to say anything..." bit actually make in terms of a later
prosecution?

I think (but IANAL) that it just means whatever the accused says (or
fails to say) between arrest and caution cannot be used in evidence in
a court case.

My understanding is that unless the caution is given at the earliest
possible opportunity after arrest, then the detention becomes unlawful.

Correct, but it ceases to be unlawful if the caution is subsequently
given. Similarly if the reason for arrest is not given. The damages
likely to be awarded for a period of a couple of hours would be little
more than nominal in those circumstances; in a case I was involved
with, about twenty years ago, the jury awarded £50 an hour, after a
strong direction that the figure should be moderate.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"