Our cops in the north

Status
Not open for further replies.
a1970man said:
I enjoyed last nights episode, I like the lad giving a no comment interview about the quad bike and kept randomly answering questions.
His brief should have prepared him a bit better I think.

The paedo thing was horrific, but I bet the tech challenge of finding out how they hide stuff is interesting, downside is seeing the images once you've uncovered their little stashes.
Bastards.
Click to expand...
Did say to other half why don't custody suite solicitors ever speak
 


a1970man said:
I enjoyed last nights episode, I like the lad giving a no comment interview about the quad bike and kept randomly answering questions.
His brief should have prepared him a bit better I think.

The paedo thing was horrific, but I bet the tech challenge of finding out how they hide stuff is interesting, downside is seeing the images once you've uncovered their little stashes.
Bastards.
Click to expand...

Should have pressed him more on his dog imo.
 
Super Elmo said:
I would only intervene if the question was not appropriate or if my client needed further advice off the tape.
Click to expand...

What would an example of an in appropriate question be? Isn’t it up to the police what they ask in interview and not the legal rep( usually aren’t solicitors)‘s job to decide if it’s in appropriate?
 
gavinmcant said:
What would an example of an in appropriate question be? Isn’t it up to the police what they ask in interview and not the legal rep( usually aren’t solicitors)‘s job to decide if it’s in appropriate?
Click to expand...
I'm not a solicitor but as they are there as your legal representative working for you and not the police, I assume they advise on whether to answer certain questions which may incriminate you.
 
Doesn't seem to be on next week. Bit random bringing it back just for one episode (unless they didn't show it when they showed the rest due to a court case).
 
gavinmcant said:
What would an example of an in appropriate question be? Isn’t it up to the police what they ask in interview and not the legal rep( usually aren’t solicitors)‘s job to decide if it’s in appropriate?
Click to expand...

“well I think this” - you’re not there to pontificate officer just ask questions based on the evidence

“you’ve done this before” - let’s not get bad character in via the back door and stick to the facts here

i once had a sex case which was male on male as children and the officer asked “were you just experimenting with your sexuality”. You wouldn’t dream of asking that to anyone else.
 
Super Elmo said:
“well I think this” - you’re not there to pontificate officer just ask questions based on the evidence

“you’ve done this before” - let’s not get bad character in via the back door and stick to the facts here

i once had a sex case which was male on male as children and the officer asked “were you just experimenting with your sexuality”. You wouldn’t dream of asking that to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Sorry like, I would reply, your opinions as to whether my questions are appropriate are entirely irrelevant. You don’t know what evidence there is or why the questions are being asked. As for evidence of bad character or whatever else, that can be edited out of the transcript of the interview if it needs to be. Now then, let’s not have you interrupting unnecessarily, your client is aware that he can speak to you should he request to do so. I appreciate you rely on returning customers and have to put a bit of a performance on for them but you should also know your role here and it isn’t to decide what questions I can ask.Would be my reply I suppose.
Temp0101 said:
I'm not a solicitor but as they are there as your legal representative working for you and not the police, I assume they advise on whether to answer certain questions which may incriminate you.
Click to expand...

They can suggest the punter makes no reply but have no say in what questions can be asked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gavinmcant said:
Sorry like, I would reply, your opinions as to whether my questions are appropriate are entirely irrelevant. You don’t know what evidence there is or why the questions are being asked. As for evidence of bad character or whatever else, that can be edited out of the transcript of the interview if it needs to be. Now then, let’s not have you interrupting unnecessarily, your client is aware that he can speak to you should he request to do so. I appreciate you rely on returning customers and have to put a bit of a performance on for them but you should also know your role here and it isn’t to decide what questions I can ask.Would be my reply I suppose.
Click to expand...

think I would have to ask the sergeant to listen to the tape and decide if the question was appropriate in that case then. Before my client answers it
 
Super Elmo said:
think I would have to ask the sergeant to listen to the tape and decide if the question was appropriate in that case then. Before my client answers it
Click to expand...

You can make representations post interview and have them documented on the custody record if you fancy but that interview isn’t getting stopped because you don’t like the questions. Once the interviews over, those questions and responses are evidence. Apologies if this sounds dismissive but again, the legal reps opinion on the appropriateness or validity of questions is neither here nor there. I would definitely be asking someone accused of a sexual assault what their orientation was by the way.
 
gavinmcant said:
Sorry like, I would reply, your opinions as to whether my questions are appropriate are entirely irrelevant. You don’t know what evidence there is or why the questions are being asked. As for evidence of bad character or whatever else, that can be edited out of the transcript of the interview if it needs to be. Now then, let’s not have you interrupting unnecessarily, your client is aware that he can speak to you should he request to do so. I appreciate you rely on returning customers and have to put a bit of a performance on for them but you should also know your role here and it isn’t to decide what questions I can ask.Would be my reply I suppose.


They can suggest the punter makes no reply but have no say in what questions can be asked.
Click to expand...

You should not be asking questions about bad character. This is something that can only be entered in evidence with permission of the court, whether it be 'intelligence led' or from previous convictions. It used to be called 'similar fact' evidence, and was based on common law 'case stated'. Incorporated into legislation by the recommendations of the Sir Robin Auld review of the Crininal Justice System.

Legal Reps/Solicitors are allowed to interrupt, so long as it isnt frequent or with a view to frustrating the interview flow. The are not allowed to answer for or suggest answers to the detained person.

The penultimate sentence beginning with 'I appreciate' shows you are either inexperienced at dealing with the legal profession, naieve, arrogant, or just an arsehole.Its all on tape. If you had said that to me I would have requested the interview be suspended and the room cleared apart from me and you. You would be put in your place and a formal complaint made against you about your behaviour.
 
gavinmcant said:
You can make representations post interview and have them documented on the custody record if you fancy but that interview isn’t getting stopped because you don’t like the questions. Once the interviews over, those questions and responses are evidence. Apologies if this sounds dismissive but again, the legal reps opinion on the appropriateness or validity of questions is neither here nor there. I would definitely be asking someone accused of a sexual assault what their orientation was by the way.
Click to expand...

PACE Code C says that the questioning must be relevant to the investigation so if the questions are irrelevant a solicitor should intervene. In fact, the law society says that that is their job to do so. PACE Code C also allows the interview to be suspended to allow representations to be made and they are defined as bringing a critical matter to the attention of the custody officer
 
socrates said:
You should not be asking questions about bad character. This is something that can only be entered in evidence with permission of the court, whether it be 'intelligence led' or from previous convictions. It used to be called 'similar fact' evidence, and was based on common law 'case stated'. Incorporated into legislation by the recommendations of the Sir Robin Auld review of the Crininal Justice System.

Legal Reps/Solicitors are allowed to interrupt, so long as it isnt frequent or with a view to frustrating the interview flow. The are not allowed to answer for or suggest answers to the detained person.

The penultimate sentence beginning with 'I appreciate' shows you are either inexperienced at dealing with the legal profession, naieve, arrogant, or just an arsehole.Its all on tape. If you had said that to me I would have requested the interview be suspended and the room cleared apart from me and you. You would be put in your place and a formal complaint made against you about your behaviour.
Click to expand...

Your complaint that you don’t like the questions would be laughed at. I probably did 500 or so interviews and rarely did I not mention the punters previous convictions. As I say, it may be edited out at court, it may not. It’s really not for you or I to say. As you mention, the Court shall decide. You can ask for the interview to be stopped but if your client wants to go ahead, you can just sit there in a huff until it’s finished if you like but it’s continuing.
Super Elmo said:
PACE Code C says that the questioning must be relevant to the investigation so if the questions are irrelevant a solicitor should intervene. In fact, the law society says that that is their job to do so. PACE Code C also allows the interview to be suspended to allow representations to be made and they are defined as bringing a critical matter to the attention of the custody officer
Click to expand...

How do you know what’s relevant if you aren’t given full disclosure before hand though? Saying you don’t like a question would not qualify as per above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gavinmcant said:
Your complaint that you don’t like the questions would be laughed at. I probably did 500 or so interviews and rarely did I not mention the punters previous convictions. As I say, it may be edited out at court, it may not. It’s really not for you or I to say. As you mention, the Court shall decide. You can ask for the interview to be stopped but if your client wants to go ahead, you can just sit there in a huff until it’s finished if you like but it’s continuing.


How do you know what’s relevant if you aren’t given full disclosure before hand though? Saying you don’t like a question would not qualify as per above.
Click to expand...

my original post was about pontification by an officer rather than a potentially relevant/not relevant question. If there was insufficient disclosure it would be no comment anyway so makes no difference what questions are asked
 
Super Elmo said:
my original post was about pontification by an officer rather than a potentially relevant/not relevant question. If there was insufficient disclosure it would be no comment anyway so makes no difference what questions are asked
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s fair enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top