Police allowed to confer before giving statements.

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by muhandis89, Jul 19, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Many years ago officers involved in any incident were not supposed to confer with each other before making notes. Eventually one was asked by a barrister if he had conferred with others and a Judge intervened and said it would be surprising if he had not as it was human nature for officers involved in the same incident to talk about it. After that things changed. Not saying it's right but that is the backgroung as I remember it.
  2. Yawn, it's old news. A standard and agreed practice.

    Best start typing different stuff into your google search box other than.

    "Bad Plod"
    "Naughty Plod"
    "Corrupt Plod"
    "Plod make a mistake"
    "Plod do something wrong"
  3. As you say 'yawn'
    20 odd years ago I was taught to put a line in my statement if I had conferred with another officer. I've never had any instruction not to do this.

    It always used to make me inwardly giggle when the defence barrister at big court would say
    "So you made these notes up with other officers?"

    As any AFO knows, PIP guidance is that we do confer before putting pen to paper.
  4. So what? Conferring helsp to ensure that officers recollect all the salient points. When you mount a recce patrol, does every soldier write an individual patrol report, or do they write a joint one collectively?

    IMHO, it is a safe enough assumption that police officers are not all potential psychos who are desperate for excuses to kill someone, and so do not need to be treated as criminals and assumed guilty by the media and the IPCC every time they shoot someone. Indeed, certain sections of the media seem to regard a police shooting as a failure rather than an acceptable resolution to the threat. Obviously, it would be nice if JCdM or the Shotgun Barrister hadn't been killed, but in both cases the officers on the ground recognised a threat and reacted to it. Quite how the media and the IPCC think themselves qualified to pass judgement on the actions of those trained and experienced officers escapes me.
  5. There was never any real drama about notes of an incident until the time that Judges Rules started to be queried as good law. I'm surprised they have lasted as long as this. If defence used to comment that they all read the same, the nice friendly man in the wig used to say 'Obviously. They are all describing the same incident'
    Round about the times when IRA started to operate on mainland, the police were under pressure to get the blokes, get confessions and get them banged up. This led to unofficial election of a Aid or suchlike being made The Script Writer to ensure all singing from the same hymn sheet.
  6. But it does add grist to the mill that SO19 are now a rogue unit out of control of the Metropolitan Police hierachy.

    Sad that it takes a couple of deaths but the upcoming Coroners Court and Judicial Review may result in the curbibg of the excesses of some individuals in this unit.
  7. I assume the author of this thread understands he she or it has the right to legal representation should he she or it get arrested. Does he she or it honestly believe that is not conferring. Or further to the point does he she or it believe that the legal rep just goes and sits in the tea room.

    The Bucks get to confer alot more than any bobby does. As a bobbies POCKET NOTEBOOK ENTRY NOT statement has to be done then and there or as soon after. Once that is done his statement is as good as done.

    The defendant will still be conferring in court!!!
  8. I do hope that the current legal activity re extra judicial executions of a Brazilian and a Chelsea lawyer result in the Met regaining managerial control over this unit.
  9. And a one and a two and a one two three four

    "Here we go again"
  10. Apart from a jumble of empty words which clearly give you a little stiffy, just what is your point?
  11. My point is off we go again down the Charles De Menehwhatever route.

    Its old hat now and a given that the Bobbies who fired shot an "Innocent" man. However had they known he was innocent I doubt highly they'd have shot him and risked everything from their liberty to their sanity. However you know this as you've done this discussion to death!
  12. The JCD shooting was a tragic accident caused by fualty intelligence and incompetant leadership by Gold Commanders. The SFO's were under the most extreme pressure imaginable; face to face with a person that senior officers had told them was a suicide bomber. Only two weeks after suicide bombers had murdered 52 people.

    The shooting of the lawyer in Chelsea was a clean kill; he opened fire with a shotgun and ignored police calls for him to surrender. Suicide by cop. Fcuk him.

    Oh, and my point is: jog on. :roll:
  13. lawyer in Chelsea

    Forgot to comment.

    However my point of fcuk him has already been raised. I mean really... You cut about London shooting sh1t and get shot by the bloody plod... The worlds gone mad!
  14. Sorry guys but the judicial process is still in full flow in both cases. OK the media is not irrefutable but the Met leaks like a sieve to it.

    The facts are that there is to be a coroners court to investigate the circumstances of the JC de M case and the family of the lawyer have been granted Judicial Review of the shooting of the lawyer.

    In both cases there is a schism between the various police teams who are employing lawyers to engage each other.

    Remember SO19 employs people so wet they sue when they are called names in jest by their own bosses.

    Hopefully both these cases will result in a reality check.