One for the monkeys and the lawyers - Identifying suspects

This really f*cks me off...

Suspect beats up someone. Suspect is arrested shortly afterwards on evidence received (sadly not identified by someone who knows him) and totally denies involvement during initial IAC.

Suspect told no problem, consent to ID procedures (in this case video identification) and we can clear this up if it wasn't you. Suspect refuses.

According to the codes I've now got to either:

Group or video ID
or worst case confrontation.

All of these of course completely impractical in:

a. dealing with host nation witnesses.
b. suspect on operations.

Why the f*ck should we bend over backwards for a suspect that doesn't want to clear himself? Why shouldn't I just get to go straight to a photo array for instance? The suspect has been given every opportunity to use the most reliable methods of eliminating himself from an inquiry. Why if he chooses not to take up this kind offer should we have to get f*cked around to accommodate him? It's f*cking b*llocks!

Rant over... sorry the subject matter is so monkey / lawyer specific but the clue is in the title...

 

"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"

Can a court not draw an inference from his refusal to make a defence. I thought that was the whole point of the caution.

Edited to add. I've had a beer and I'm clearly losing it as the caution does not mean that at all.

I think we all share your frustration at the way the law sometimes seems to protect the the guilty whilst making the innocent into victims.

 

i agree his silence speack volumes.

 

Unfortunately a court doesn't. :X

 

i know inocent untill PROVEN guilty isnt democracy great.

 

Yeah and I'm giving him a golden opportunity to clear his name and he's not taking it....

As for inferences JAGs are not inclined during courts martial to allow ANY inference to be drawn. I can't recall the last time a successful inference was drawn in any of the matters I've put forward and I've been in Germany for as long as most recently.

Its not common practice, the rumour being because RAF lawyers always advise no comment, the JAGs are disinclined to disadvantage a suspect because he has a crap lawyer at interview after caution... just a rumour I'm sure!!

In any event as BA rightly points out in his edited post, suspect denying he was involved IS an answer to a question that I put to him. It is also most likely that he will use this defence in court ie 'it wasn't me guv' hence there would be no grounds for drawing an inference.

I'm sure there may be some wild exceptions to this that a lawyer can point out to me but in any event it doesn't happen often enough to be of use. And it still doesn't stop us being f*cked around during the investigation.

 

Longwayhome - get over it mate, you shouldn't take life so seriously. If, however you insist on allowing your job to make you lose sleep, remember that if all you are relying on is ID evidence then you are most probably on a loser anyway.

And don't say RAF lawyers are crap or I will start to lose sleep, those shining examples are handling my divorce at the moment, hopefully they will manage to keep some of my pension for my next wife to take

 

Hey D55 thats why we call it a rant! It helps to get it off your chest! And helps you sleep! You really trust your pension et al to RAF lawyers??!!!

F*ck how are you sleeping? Ha ha!

 

You do not have to say or do anything! It is up to you (police and the crown)!!!! to prove guilt not for the accused to prove innocence. Its the bascis of our legal system. When in court no inference can be taken by any accused taking this stance, the judge will direct a jury of this and his lawyer will bring it up more than once. He can sit and say nothing not even name and address and he is more than entitled to do so. That said I dont agree with it, break this and you breach his EU Human rights and then the claim goes in.

 

Absolutely Borderer, f*cking barking... its one of those classic areas thats stacked for the accused. Its overkill.. Don't want to take part in an ID parade? Fine mate, I'll use your photo. Why is that a problem? Its not as reliable as VIPER or live parade but if he has the opportunity to use these and doesn't why should we bend over backwards?

 

Longwayhome - ever thought of just making up the evidence. That's what I always do and it seems to work ok

 

Ha ha! Wow its tempting with some of these freaks....

 

So you have already decided he is guilty? I thought the Police job was to gather the evidence and then the court would decide innocence or guilt. I was also under the impression that it was up to the prosecution to prove the case, not the suspect to prove his innocence. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.

 

No, maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm giving said young lad (and many others like him) a chance to clear their name AFTER they've been arrested on suspicion of committing the offence. Do we think he did it? Well we reasonably suspect it, that's why he was arrested, we didn't do it on a whim.

VIPER is as reliable as live ID parades (and lots less messing around). The code of practice currently says in effect that if the suspect refuses consent for VIPER (and in effect the chance to clear his name) then we have to run around like mad men trying to get an ID done WITHOUT his consent, ie by group ID, video or at worst confronting him (roughly in that order although group and video are generally interchangable). These are NOT considered as good as VIPER or live parades and they are near impossible to organise when you have local witnesses or the suspect is on Ops.

My point is that if the suspect has refused then why shouldn't I just be able to do a photo array (that we do now when a suspect is not known prior to doing another ID procedure). Why should I have to jump through hoops?

Its got nothing to do with judging him guilty. And for info we place certain burdens on suspects already through the caution as it stands (on the rare occasion an inference is applied for) and the use of special warnings. Does this help clear up my point?

 

It does, thank you. Maybe he just wants to f*ck you around.