PACE Flashcards
Most police powers regarding investigating criminal offences are contained within…
PACE 1984 and Codes and Practice
Definition of Interview
‘Interview’ is widely defined by Code C, para. 11.1A, in purposive terms
An interview is the ‘questioning of a person regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence or offences which, under para. 10.1, must be carried out under caution’.
Interview
A caution is NOT necessary where questions are asked for other purposes, such as:
(a) solely to establish identity or ownership of a vehicle;
(b) to obtain info in accordance with a statutory requirement, eg to obtain the name & address of the driver of a vehicle;
(c) in furtherance of the proper & effective conduct of a search; or
(d) to seek verification of a written record of comments made by the person outside of an interview.
Grounds for administering a caution (required if ‘reasonable suspicion’)
Para 10.1 requires a caution to be given to a person ‘whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence’ means there must be ‘some reasonable, objective grounds for the suspicion, based on known facts or information’.
Is it an interview if a caution does not have to be administered?
NO!
questioning of a person in circumstances where a caution does not have to be administered does not amount to an interview for the purposes of Code C.
Does questioning of a person about an offence of which there are grounds to suspect him or her amount to an interview even if the person has not been arrested and no decision to arrest has been made?
YES!
The reference to ‘an offence’ means that a caution must be given if the person is questioned about an offence other than that for which he or she has been arrested if there are grounds to suspect the person of it.
Where an Interview May be Conducted
The general rules for the conduct of interviews are contained in Code C, section 11.
o Following a decision to arrest a suspect,
*only at a police station or other authorised place of detention *
Where an Interview May be Conducted
The reference to ‘a decision to arrest’ means
that if a police officer has decided to arrest a person, the arrest should not be delayed in order to question the suspect before doing so.
- The requirement that an interview be conducted at a police station is subject to exception where delay would be likely to:
(a) lead to interference with or harm to evidence connected with an offence, interference with or physical harm to other persons, or serious loss of, or damage to, property; or
(b) lead to the alerting of other persons suspected of having committed an offence but not yet arrested for it; or
(c) hinder the recovery of property obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence (para. 11.1).
Interviewing in such circumstances (i.e. not at police station) must cease once the relevant risk has been averted or the necessary questions have been put to aver the risk.
Live link - interviewed by an officer who is not in the police station
The PACE 1984, s. 39, as amended by the PCA 2017, s. 75, makes provision
enabling persons in police detention to be interviewed by an officer who is not at the police station, using live link. ‘Live link’ is defined for this purpose by s. 39(3E).
Live link - does the officer who is not in the police station have the same duty as someone in the station?
YES!
The officer who is not at the police station has the same duty as the officer to whom custody of the person has been entrusted to ensure that the person is treated in accordance with the provisions of the PACE 1984 and the codes of practice (s. 39(3B); Code C, para. 3.21A).
A caution must be administered at the
commencement of an interview
whether or not it is conducted at a police station
Does the caution need to be given again after a break?
MUST be reminded
The suspect must also be reminded that he or she is under caution at the recommencement of an interview after any break, and if there is any doubt, the caution should be given again in full
Does caution need to be given on arrest?
YES
MUST
Tell me an example of a normal caution
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. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
Does the caution need to be exact?
NO
Minor deviation = allowed
Caution - if a interpreter is used, must it be exact?
NO!
will not render it invalid provided that the essential features are adequately conveyed to the suspect
What should the PC do if the suspect does not understand the caution?
the person giving it should explain it in his or her own words
If a suspect is (exceptionally) interviewed after charge or interviewed in circumstances where the suspect has requested a solicitor but has not been permitted to consult with one: what are the terms of caution?
o ‘You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence’.
The reason for the different caution is that in such circumstances inferences cannot be drawn
Whilst Code C, para. 10.1, requires a caution to be given to a person ‘whom there are grounds to suspect’ of an offence,
Note for Guidance 10A explains this phrase by stating that there must be
‘some reasonable, objective grounds for the suspicion, based on known facts or information’.
What to consider when considering whether there are sufficient grounds for a caution to be administered
- An objective question,
- does not simply depend on how the police officer regarded the matter
Case law about whether to caution
- In Ibrahim v UK [2016] the police deliberately decided not to caution the fourth applicant when, on being interviewed as a witness, he started to incriminate himself, and the UK government accepted that he should have been cautioned at this point.
- This can be contrasted with the position in Shepherd [2019] , where it was found that there was no obligation to caution when the police officers were unaware of the existence of a byelaw which could have given rise to a reasonable suspicion.
o For examples of interpretation of the cautioning requirement by the courts,
- Sneyd v DPP [2006], in which the decision went the other way. Failure to administer a caution in circumstances where it is required is a significant and substantial breach of Code C, although it will not necessarily result in exclusion of evidence of the interview
- Similarly, giving the wrong caution will not necessarily lead to exclusion (Ibrahim )
Before interview
+
Solicitor is present (if represented)
= - Whenever a person is interviewed he or she, sufficient information must be given to
make it possible to understand the nature of the suspected offence and why the person is suspected of committing it.
When info is given about the nature of the suspected offence and why the person is suspected of committing it prior to interview, this does not require the disclosure of details which might prejudice the investigation
- In Kirk [1999] 4 All ER 698, D was arrested for theft and was not told that V had died; believing himself to be facing a charge of theft only, he made admissions.
- It was held that these should have been excluded.
Also Charles v DPP.
- The decision on what should be disclosed rests with the investigating officer, who must make a record of what was disclosed and when it was disclosed
In addition to the caution, where a suspect is interviewed at a police station or other authorised place of detention following arrest, a special warning must be given when (Code C, para. 10.11) :
(a) is asked to account for any object, mark or substance, or mark on such objects found on his or her person, in or on his or her clothing or footwear, otherwise in his or her possession, or in the place where the arrest took place; or
- (b) to account for his or her presence at the place where the arrest took place,
Code C, para. 10.11
if the special warning is not given where a suspect is interviewed at a police station or other authorised place of detention when special circs apply, what impact does this have?
Inferences cannot be drawn if the warning is not given
Code C, para. 10.11
Where a suspect is interviewed at a police station or other authorised place of detention when special circs apply, when does the requirement to give a special warning does not apply?
where the person who has requested a solicitor is interviewed without having been given an opportunity to consult the solicitor
Information about Legal Advice
Prior to the commencement or recommencement of an interview at a police station or other authorised place of detention, the interviewing officer must, unless access to a solicitor has been delayed or one of the exceptions applies, remind the suspect of the entitlement to free legal advice and that the interview can be delayed for legal advice to be obtained
Significant Statement or Silence
At the beginning of an interview carried out at a police station or other authorised place of detention, the interviewing officer must, after cautioning the suspect, put to the suspect any significant statement or silence which occurred in the presence and hearing of a police officer or other police staff (and which has not been put in the course of a previous interview) (Code C, para. 11.4).
What is a significant statement?
i) one which appears to be capable of being used in evidence
ii) and in particular a direct admission of guilt
iii) It does not include what a suspect is alleged to have said as part of the conduct constituting the offence
iv) - A significant silence is a failure or refusal to answer a question, or answer satisfactorily when under caution which might, allowing for the restrictions on drawing inferences from silence, give rise to an adverse inference under the CJPO 1994
Conduct of the Interview
oppression, nor indicate
No police officer or other interviewer may try to obtain answers to questions or to elicit a statement by the use of oppression, nor indicate
except in answer to a direct question, what action the police will take if the suspect answers or refuses to answer questions or make a statement.
If the suspect asks the officer directly what action will be taken in any of those events, the officer may inform the suspect of the proposed action, which could be, e.g., keeping the person in detention if further action is to be taken.
The proposed action must, however, be proper and warranted (Code C, para. 11.5). Thus it was improper for the police to tell a church organist accused of theft from choirboys that the police would interview all of the choirboys if he did not confess (Howden-Simpson [1991] Crim LR 49).
Conditional caution - police interview
Conditional caution - The police should not seek a confession by offering a caution
Case law about interview - some indication of what is acceptable.
- legitimate for police officers to pursue their interrogation of a suspect with a view to eliciting admissions even where the suspect denies involvement in the offence or declines to answer specific questions (Holgate-Mohammed v Duke)
- confession should be excluded where the police falsely informed D that incriminating fingerprints had been found, although the fact that his solicitor was also deceived may have been an important factor. (Mason)
- the Court of Appeal stated that there was a positive duty on the police not to actively mislead a suspect
- The asking of hypothetical questions is permissible, although it may need to be approached with care (Stringer [2008] EWCA Crim 1222).
- Police questioning which is carried on after repeated denials or refusals may become oppressive (Paris (1993) 97 Cr App R 99).
- Hectoring and bullying throughout an interview has been held to be oppressive (Beales [1991] Crim LR 118),
- whereas questioning that was rude and discourteous, with raised voices and some bad language, was not (Emmerson (1991) 92 Cr App R 284).
When Interviews Should Cease
The interview of a person who has not been charged or informed that he or she may be prosecuted must cease when
a) the officer in charge of the investigation is satisfied that all the questions the officer considers relevant to obtaining accurate and reliable information about the offence have been put to the suspect,
b) the officer has taken account of other available evidence; AND
c) the officer (or the custody officer in the case of a detained suspect) reasonably believes there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction
- Code C, para. 11.6, gives the police a large degree of latitude in determining when interviewing should cease since it appears to permit the police to continue questioning beyond the point when they are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to charge if, e.g., the officer believes that further questions could or should be put to the suspect.
o However, there is some inconsistency within Code C and thus uncertainty about the effect of para. 11.6. It provides that in the case of a detained suspect (presumably, as opposed to a volunteer) it is for the custody officer and not the investigating officer to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge.
o On the other hand, para. 16.1 states that when the officer in charge of the investigation believes that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, the suspect must be taken to the custody officer without delay.
o It may be that this is intended to reflect the fact that the custody officer has formal responsibility for making the decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge.
o However, para. 16.1 implies that when the officer in charge of the investigation is so satisfied, the suspect must be taken to the custody officer even though the investigating officer still may have further questions to put to the suspect. In any event, under the PACE 1984, s. 37(7), once the custody officer determines that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person the custody officer must proceed under that subsection, which would normally preclude further interviewing. ‘Sufficient evidence to charge’ is not defined, but the Director’s Guidance on Charging provides that the custody officer must normally apply the Full Code Test (see D2.4).
Recording of Interviews,
Interviews of suspects must normally be contemporaneously recorded
Recording
Further, any comment that might be relevant made outside the context of an interview, including unsolicited comments =
must be recorded and, where practicable, the suspect must be given the opportunity to verify the record.
Failure to comply with the recording requirements may lead
(though not
necessarily) to exclusion of evidence of what was allegedly said.
Does interviews have to be recorded if not in a police station?
yes!
Interviews conducted under caution, whether or not at a police station, must normally be recorded using an authorised recording device
Juveniles & mentally disordered/vulnerable persons - can they be interviewed?
(1) Must not be interviewed; or
(2) asked to provide or sign a written statement in the absence of the appropriate adult unless the conditions for conducting an interview away from a police station under Code C, para 11.1, are satisfied
Juveniles & mentally disordered/vulnerable persons - can they be interviewed?
(1) Must not be interviewed; or
(2) asked to provide or sign a written statement in the absence of the appropriate adult unless the conditions for conducting an interview away from a police station under Code C, para 11.1, are satisfied
A child or young person should be interviewed at …
his or her place of education only in exceptional circumstances and then only if the principal or principal’s nominee agrees.
- Efforts should be made to notify parents and the appropriate adult. In cases of necessity, and provided that the school was not the victim of the alleged offence, the principal may act as the appropriate adult
- Efforts should be made to notify parents and the appropriate adult. In cases of necessity, and provided that the school was not the victim of the alleged offence, the principal may act as the appropriate adult
A person whom the custody officer has determined requires an interpreter - can they be interviewed without an interpreter ?
NO
- unless authorised by an officer of the rank of superintendent or above, being satisfied that delaying the interview will lead to the consequences in Code C, para. 11.1(a) to (c), and that the interview would not significantly harm the person’s physical or mental state
A person whom the custody officer has determined requires an interpreter - notes
- Normally, the interpreter must be physically present
- If live link is used, the modifications to various procedures as set out in Code C, annex N, part 2, apply. Where a suspect cannot read and an interview is recorded in writing, the record must be read over to the suspect who must be asked to verify it
No person should be interviewed if they are:
(a) unable to appreciate the significance of the questions asked and their
answers; OR
(b) unable to understand what is happening because of effect of drink,
drugs, any illness/ailment/condition
(c) UNLESS 11.18 applies, i.e.:
i. authorised by rank of Superintendent;
ii. one of the three consequences applies [DRINK,DRUGS, ILLNESS]; &
iii. satisfied would not significantly harm the person’s physical or mental state.
Main powers of arrest and the detention and treatment of suspects
A number of police powers premised upon the constable having reasonable grounds for suspicion
N.B: ‘reasonable suspicion’ relates to facts, not law: thus a constable who arrest
on the basis of a mistaken view of the law does not have reasonable suspicion
Two-part test for ‘reasonable suspicion’:
o (1) [subjective test, a genuine suspicion]: the constable carrying out the arrest must actually suspect;
o (2) [[objective test, objective basis for suspicion]]: a reasonable person, in possession of the same facts as the constable at that time, would also suspect
AND the arrest must be Wednesbury reasonable (not so unreasonable that
no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it