Where an organisation or company is invited to attend an interview under caution, the company will be asked to nominate a person to attend the interview to answer questions on its behalf. The legal representative of the company should ensure that he does not act for conflicted clients see Practice note, Conflict of interest in criminal cases. Where it becomes clear that the investigators intend to interview the nominated person as a suspect for example because he is a director or senior manager suspected of wrongdoing , the company will need to nominate another spokesperson for the company.
Where this is not possible for example because there is only one director , the same person can attend but there should be two separate interviews under caution, one of the company through its nominated representative and one of the same individual in their personal capacity. If only one interview is conducted investigating both the company and the individual, it may be impossible to identify which answers are admissible against each and the interview is likely to be inadmissible at subsequent proceedings.
Similarly where a partnership as opposed to a limited liability partnership is suspected of an offence where criminal liability may attach to the partnership and the individual partners, it should always be made clear in advance the capacity in which a person is being interviewed. What is the significance of a caution?
A caution must be administered where a defendant is suspected of committing a criminal offence and is to be questioned about that offence. This is to ensure that the answers or silence will be admissible in proceedings. A defence representative must give clear advice about the caution and about what it means for the suspect in terms of how his answers may be used in evidence against him and the potential consequences of silence see Checklist, Advising a client on how to approach a police station interview.
Grounds to suspect a person have to be more than vague or unsubstantiated. There must be evidence but this does not need to be as high as a prima facie case. 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. The suspect's responses to questions put to him during an interview under caution conducted in accordance with PACE Code C may be used as evidence against him in any subsequent criminal proceedings.
Evidence obtained during the interview can only be used against the person being questioned; it cannot be used in evidence against another person for example, a co-defendant or the company where the suspect is an employee , although it may suggest additional lines of enquiry for the investigators to pursue. A conversation will constitute an interview if a suspect is being asked to incriminate himself. A single question may be sufficient to constitute an interview.
How should an interview under caution be recorded? An accurate record must be made of every interview with a person suspected of an offence. The record must state the place of the interview, the time it begins and ends, the time the record is made if different , any breaks in the interview and the names of all those present.
The record must be made on forms provided for this purpose or in the investigator's note book, or in accordance with the code of practice for the audio recording of interviews with suspects see Home Office: PACE Code E. Interviews may be recorded using any removable, physical audio recording medium that can be played and copied or on a secure digital recording network device paragraph 1. The tapes or CDs should be unwrapped and loaded into the machine in the sight of the suspect.
After the interview, one of the tapes or CDs will be sealed in the presence of the suspect and normally only opened in court. Code D Main methods used by the police to identify people in connection with the investigation of offences and the keeping of accurate and reliable criminal records Code E Audio recording of interviews with suspects in the police station Code F Visual recording with sound of interviews with suspects - there is no statutory requirement on police officers to visually record interviews, but the contents of this code should be considered if an interviewing officer decides to make a visual recording with sound of an interview with a suspect Code G Powers of arrest under section 24 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as amended by section of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act Code H requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects related to terrorism in police custody by police officers.
Explore the topic Policing and crime prevention. Is this page useful? Maybe Yes this page is useful No this page is not useful.
Thank you for your feedback. Report a problem with this page. What were you doing? What went wrong? Email address. Exercise by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest and the need for a police officer to make a record of a stop or encounter.
Requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects not related to terrorism in police custody by police officers. The decision should not be seen as a rubber-stamping of the necessity to arrest but as a separate independent decision.
This determination of necessity continues throughout the time in custody and should be regularly reviewed as per PACE sec 34 2. A custody record must be created for any detainee who is taken to a police station, even if they are subsequently de-arrested or detention is not authorised.
It is not appropriate where:. The decision to multi-occupy cells rests with the custody officer. Multi-occupancy should be justified and recorded, using a joint risk assessment, on the relevant custody records. A detainee should not share a cell with another person if any of the above risks apply to either of them. Custody officers and staff should consider using a CCTV-equipped cell. They must make private toilet facilities available.
Expecting detainees to share open toilet facilities may breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights the right to respect for private and family life. When it has been deemed necessary to use multi-occupancy, there should be an organisational review of the circumstances to ascertain if this can be avoided in the future.
Custody officers and staff must always consider the risk of one person harming another when sharing a cell. The custody officer should increase the frequency of checking detainees in multi-occupancy cells.
Custody staff, including HCPs, must keep the custody officer informed of any noticeable changes in behaviour which could alter the risk assessment. A custody record must be opened for all detainees who arrive at the police station. If the custody officer believes that there are insufficient grounds for detention, they must record the reasons and release the detainee. Cases where detention is refused should be reviewed by the manager with responsibility for custody.
This is irrespective of whether the person has already received treatment elsewhere, for example, at a hospital. Other guidance is available within the following area of APP :. The custody officer must ensure that all relevant information is made available to the HCP, and that the HCP reciprocates. Detained persons are not obliged to submit to an examination or to supply information. The custody officer is responsible for initialising the ongoing risk assessment of all detainees, although this may be delegated by the custody officer to another appropriately trained member of custody staff.
The initial risk assessment should consider the circumstances of the arrest and any relevant use of force, restraint and physical or mental health issues that the detainee may have.
Custody officers must ask whether each detainee wishes to speak in private with a member of custody staff about any matter concerning their personal needs relating to health, hygiene and welfare; if the detainee wishes, this member of staff may be of the same sex.
These changes provide an opportunity for female detainees to raise issues about their menstrual needs and also for all detainees to raise issues relating to other health and hygiene needs such as products that may be required for incontinence and colostomy.
After examining a detainee, the HCP should record any clinical findings relevant to their custodial healthcare and directions in the custody record. If there is information that must remain confidential and is not relevant to the effective ongoing care and wellbeing of the detainee, the HCP should make an entry in the custody record indicating where the clinical findings are recorded.
Directions concerning the frequency of visits and any concerns must be clear and precise. The custody officer must ask the HCP for clarification if any oral or written clinical directions are unclear. Where a custody officer has concerns about the clinical direction received, they are at liberty to escalate the matter to a senior member of healthcare staff or seek a second medical opinion. As the thresholds for fitness for detention and fitness to plead are different, prosecution may still be appropriate if a person is assessed as not fit for detention.
Custody officers should consider the overall risk assessment for the custody suite, taking into consideration the needs and safety of all those within the custody environment.
All visitors, including solicitors, HCPs, appropriate adults, custody visitors or interpreters, should be aware of their role and responsibilities prior to gaining access to custody. Only those with legitimate reasons should be present in custody. If an individual is denied access to a custody suite or particular cell, the reason for this must be noted in the custody record. An overriding principle for the custody officer is that those detained within custody must be treated with dignity and respect, and that their individual welfare needs are paramount subject to specific risk assessment during their period of detention.
These rights may be exercised at any stage during the period in custody and comprise the following:. This written notice contains information on:. This list has been paraphrased from paragraph 3. The detainee must be given an opportunity to read the notice and should be asked to sign the custody record to acknowledge its receipt. Any refusal must be recorded on the custody record. Examples of methods of communication include audio recording or verbal explanation, use of a hearing loop, provision of foreign language or easy-read versions of the notice, or use of a two-way handset for translation.
Custody officers and staff must record any request by a detainee for an appropriate adult that is refused in the custody record.
Where a person is interviewed as a suspect in a voluntary interview, is not arrested but is cautioned, the person giving the caution must tell them that if they agree to remain voluntarily, they may obtain free and independent legal advice. The officer should give the person a copy of the written notice explaining arrangements for obtaining legal advice and specify that this includes the right to speak to a solicitor on the telephone.
The officer should ask the person if they want advice and make appropriate arrangements if they do. No other written information needs to be provided. The interviewing officer must ensure that they follow any other provisions of Codes C, E and F that can be applied to suspects who are not under arrest. There may be occasions when a person is produced from a prison establishment to be held in police custody for interview by specialist debriefing teams.
Any controlled drugs which are legal property of the detainee must be carefully recorded and secured separately. There may be occasions where, for security reasons, information is recorded elsewhere. The custody record should detail where, if this is the case.
This includes, in particular:. The custody officer must assess whether the detainee is fit to be interviewed. If there are doubts about their medical fitness for interview, an HCP must assess the detainee before the interview. Failure to do this may prejudice subsequent proceedings. Some groups of detainees may not be interviewed unless an officer of superintendent rank or above considers delay will lead to the following consequences:.
Interviewing in any of these circumstances shall cease once the relevant risk has been averted eg, additional suspects arrested or the necessary questions have been put in order to attempt to avert that risk.
Where this detail cannot be added in full to the custody record, officers and staff should enter a reference to its location. Pre charge bail is a unique policing tool and should be tailored to the specific circumstances for which it is being granted.
Bail is an alternative to custody — it allows for officers and staff to continue the investigation without the suspect being detained. Conditional bail allows officers to attach conditions to bail which can protect complainants or witnesses, preserve evidence and mitigate the risk of further criminality. However, bail can result in disadvantages for the suspect and therefore its use must be justified in all circumstances and subject to regular review.
Police forces must ensure that rigorous, transparent processes exist which closely align bail management in each case to the developing investigative plan. If further time is required then the presumption is to release without bail.
0コメント