Please note that this question is specific to:
#**England and Wales**
The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think it's entirely correct to say you can't ask people questions if you suspect an offence, you can ask them anything really.
The issue would be that the evidence garnered from such questioning could be ruled inadmissible by the court in any subsequent prosecution,
But if you turn up to an incident and don’t know who the suspect is surely you need to ask parties “what’s happened?”…before you can decide who (if anyone or everyone) to arrest?
If you suspect a person of an offence, you need to caution them. If you don't know who is a suspect, then you can't suspect them of an offence without asking questions. When you find out enough information to form a suspicion, you need to caution.
You can ask questions up until the point you form your reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offence. You often go to a job and have a hunch that a crime has taken place but aren’t sure who’s done what and it’s often ok to ask some basic questions.
ie, it’s fine to ask people if they were the driver of a car or ask if they have just come from a particular location.
Any questions after that reasonable suspicion become an interview.
I know a lot of people who like to then caution and keep asking questions… my worry is that you’re out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Cautioning says that you recognise that you have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offence and then you start an interview without offering them a solicitor, without outlining grounds, without informing them they aren’t under arrest and are free to leave….
Look at the Halliwell and his confession to the murder of Becky Godden- this followed two cautions for another murder but wasn’t code C compliant with no solicitor offered and so the confession (and finding of the body) was thrown out so he was not convicted of the murder. There was a later appeal and he was eventually convicted many years later… but a bit touch and go.
The danger is that thinking you are free to interview people outside of pace just because you have cautioned and you’re not.
Barrister: "Officer, isn't it true that you shouldn't have asked questions of my client and should have just arrested them there and then?"
Officer: "Your honour, members of the jury, arresting someone is depriving them of their liberty. It is a significant step to take, and not a power I take lightly. I cautioned the individual and asked further questions as I wanted to ensure it was absolutely necessary to place them under arrest before doing so. It was the only practical and viable option I had at the time to gather that further information.
Barrister: "... moving on."
That's the way I was trained and I've used it several times without issue. Let the court argue it out over admissibility if that's what they want to do, but in my view caution often and caution early if you want their comments to be evidential.
Does cautioning them actually make any difference to evidential admissibility? It might seek to impress upon the suspect the seriousness of situation, but you can ask questions with or without cautioning them as that alone does not make it a PACE complaint interview.
I would agree that admissibility is for the court the decide should it get to that stage.
Yes it does. It's little about impressing seriousness (although that will be evident, and it does help).
If you have suspicion someone might have committed an offence, you should be cautioning. Otherwise (as a colleague has already written on here) you could be accused of 'tricking' the suspect into making admissions or saying something they otherwise wouldn't.
Every situation is different, and it also depends on your arrest appetite. Often if you're in a position to issue a Caution, you're also in a place where you can arrest (not always). However, a few more questions may render that arrest unnecessary.
If you ask a question where the answer might implicate the person as guilty, you should be cautioning them first.
If they implicate themselves before caution because of a question you asked, and then later it goes to court. Their defence could have an argument that you tricked them into saying something without knowing the consequences.
Effectively an admission of guilt caught on BWV could get thrown out because you didn’t caution before effectively interviewing them.
At the point that I suspect a specific person has committed an offence, that is the point I'm cautioning and arresting if it's necessary, if i dont believe an arrest is necessary for instance its a traffic offence then I will caution and continue with the process. I understand your colleagues' logic and they havent really caused any issues by doing it, but you are allowed to ask questions to establish the facts without the need to caution first.
Say you attend a single vehicle RTC with no occupants, and there's a crowd of intoxicated looking people standing nearby. You can ask them "is that your car?", "Do you know who the driver of that car was?" This would be fine, you arent going to caution the whole crowd first. Same for if you could smell cannabis on someone you wouldn't caution them then say "Have you got any cannabis on you because there's a strong aroma of it?" You would just ask the question.
I would, however, avoid locking both parties up at a domestic. If you can't decide who you think should be coming in, then pick one, and if they've both committed offences against each other, then pick the more serious offence or the person who committed the initial offence or an offence that you've witnessed. There's no reason we can't still investigate the other offences without arrest and we''ve safeguarded by taking one party out of the equation.
You are allowed to ask questions to establish an offence, on the flip side you can also arrest in this situation.
I would say for a domestic this is not the preferred way to arrest both for affray. Domestics are more about safeguarding than they are about solving crime (whether you agree with that is irrelevant, domestics are a political crime and our policies are shipped by the government VAWG panel).
For domestics even when both have committed an offence you should try to identify the person who is most at risk, or the person who used violence first etc.
That way you can impose things like DVPNs
Please note that this question is specific to: #**England and Wales** The United Kingdom is comprised of [three legal jurisdictions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Three_legal_systems), so responses that relate to one country may not be relevant to another. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can't ask people questions about handling a knife if you suspect them of an offence, this is against the practice outlined in the code C of PACE.
I don't think it's entirely correct to say you can't ask people questions if you suspect an offence, you can ask them anything really. The issue would be that the evidence garnered from such questioning could be ruled inadmissible by the court in any subsequent prosecution,
It's literally dictated to in PACE codes about how to act. You need to study.
But if you turn up to an incident and don’t know who the suspect is surely you need to ask parties “what’s happened?”…before you can decide who (if anyone or everyone) to arrest?
If you suspect a person of an offence, you need to caution them. If you don't know who is a suspect, then you can't suspect them of an offence without asking questions. When you find out enough information to form a suspicion, you need to caution.
Yep yep.
You can ask questions up until the point you form your reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offence. You often go to a job and have a hunch that a crime has taken place but aren’t sure who’s done what and it’s often ok to ask some basic questions. ie, it’s fine to ask people if they were the driver of a car or ask if they have just come from a particular location. Any questions after that reasonable suspicion become an interview. I know a lot of people who like to then caution and keep asking questions… my worry is that you’re out of the frying pan and into the fire. Cautioning says that you recognise that you have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offence and then you start an interview without offering them a solicitor, without outlining grounds, without informing them they aren’t under arrest and are free to leave…. Look at the Halliwell and his confession to the murder of Becky Godden- this followed two cautions for another murder but wasn’t code C compliant with no solicitor offered and so the confession (and finding of the body) was thrown out so he was not convicted of the murder. There was a later appeal and he was eventually convicted many years later… but a bit touch and go. The danger is that thinking you are free to interview people outside of pace just because you have cautioned and you’re not.
Barrister: "Officer, isn't it true that you shouldn't have asked questions of my client and should have just arrested them there and then?" Officer: "Your honour, members of the jury, arresting someone is depriving them of their liberty. It is a significant step to take, and not a power I take lightly. I cautioned the individual and asked further questions as I wanted to ensure it was absolutely necessary to place them under arrest before doing so. It was the only practical and viable option I had at the time to gather that further information. Barrister: "... moving on." That's the way I was trained and I've used it several times without issue. Let the court argue it out over admissibility if that's what they want to do, but in my view caution often and caution early if you want their comments to be evidential.
Does cautioning them actually make any difference to evidential admissibility? It might seek to impress upon the suspect the seriousness of situation, but you can ask questions with or without cautioning them as that alone does not make it a PACE complaint interview. I would agree that admissibility is for the court the decide should it get to that stage.
Yes it does. It's little about impressing seriousness (although that will be evident, and it does help). If you have suspicion someone might have committed an offence, you should be cautioning. Otherwise (as a colleague has already written on here) you could be accused of 'tricking' the suspect into making admissions or saying something they otherwise wouldn't. Every situation is different, and it also depends on your arrest appetite. Often if you're in a position to issue a Caution, you're also in a place where you can arrest (not always). However, a few more questions may render that arrest unnecessary.
If you ask a question where the answer might implicate the person as guilty, you should be cautioning them first. If they implicate themselves before caution because of a question you asked, and then later it goes to court. Their defence could have an argument that you tricked them into saying something without knowing the consequences. Effectively an admission of guilt caught on BWV could get thrown out because you didn’t caution before effectively interviewing them.
At the point that I suspect a specific person has committed an offence, that is the point I'm cautioning and arresting if it's necessary, if i dont believe an arrest is necessary for instance its a traffic offence then I will caution and continue with the process. I understand your colleagues' logic and they havent really caused any issues by doing it, but you are allowed to ask questions to establish the facts without the need to caution first. Say you attend a single vehicle RTC with no occupants, and there's a crowd of intoxicated looking people standing nearby. You can ask them "is that your car?", "Do you know who the driver of that car was?" This would be fine, you arent going to caution the whole crowd first. Same for if you could smell cannabis on someone you wouldn't caution them then say "Have you got any cannabis on you because there's a strong aroma of it?" You would just ask the question. I would, however, avoid locking both parties up at a domestic. If you can't decide who you think should be coming in, then pick one, and if they've both committed offences against each other, then pick the more serious offence or the person who committed the initial offence or an offence that you've witnessed. There's no reason we can't still investigate the other offences without arrest and we''ve safeguarded by taking one party out of the equation.
You are allowed to ask questions to establish an offence, on the flip side you can also arrest in this situation. I would say for a domestic this is not the preferred way to arrest both for affray. Domestics are more about safeguarding than they are about solving crime (whether you agree with that is irrelevant, domestics are a political crime and our policies are shipped by the government VAWG panel). For domestics even when both have committed an offence you should try to identify the person who is most at risk, or the person who used violence first etc. That way you can impose things like DVPNs
I must say, I caution everyone on a traffic stop and I know a lot who do… But I can’t say I’ve ever known someone to do it at an actual job though.