Interviews in custody

bigdaddymac

I noticed all interviews of people in custody are recorded in writing where as the uk it’s all video based

Any sign that this might change in the future here

Richmond Ultra

bigdaddymac wrote: »

I noticed all interviews of people in custody are recorded in writing where as the uk it’s all video based

Any sign that this might change in the future here

Unlikely, they would need to change the caution if that was to be the case as it currently says whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.

That is my take on it, if someone has a different view, I'm all ears.

Marcusm

Up until the late 80s, it was rare for police interviews to be recorded other than on paper too. Since then, they are mandatorily recorded for audio and I guess this extends to video. We are probably only 35 years behind at this stage.

Peregrinus

Richmond Ultra wrote: »

Unlikely, they would need to change the caution if that was to be the case as it currently says whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.

That is my take on it, if someone has a different view, I'm all ears.

I don't see why you think changing the caution would be a barrier. That's easily done.

(In fact it isn't necessary. An interview can be recorded and later transcribed in writing, and this is what is usually done if anything said in the interview is to be relied upon in court. But the recording and the transcript are available to the defence team.)

We already have legislation in place that requires a wide range of interviews following arrest to be recorded, if the recording equipment is available at the station (which it normally is). Voluntary interviews given by people who have not been arrested or charged do not have to be recorded.

bigdaddymac

If the caution can be easily changed why has it not ?

bigdaddymac

bigdaddymac wrote: »

I noticed all interviews of people in custody are recorded in writing where as the uk it’s all video based

Any sign that this might change in the future here

I wish!

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see why you think changing the caution would be a barrier. That's easily done.

(In fact it isn't necessary. An interview can be recorded and later transcribed in writing, and this is what is usually done if anything said in the interview is to be relied upon in court. But the recording and the transcript are available to the defence team.)

We already have legislation in place that requires a wide range of interviews following arrest to be recorded, if the recording equipment is available at the station (which it normally is). Voluntary interviews given by people who have not been arrested or charged do not have to be recorded.

It is probably because the interview is read back to the suspects at the end?
Everyone is invited to sign it.
Can't be done if it's not written down I guess

Peregrinus

bigdaddymac wrote: »

If the caution can be easily changed why has it not ?

Because, as already pointed out, it doesn't need to be. An interview which is recorded is also written down, if it is to be given in evidence, so the wording remains is accurate. The point of the caution is to put the person being interviewed on notice that what is said in the interview can be used against them, and the existing caution does that.

bigdaddymac

I think its dated as another poster stated

The uk caution seems more practical

Peregrinus

bigdaddymac wrote: »

I think its dated as another poster stated

The uk caution seems more practical

The UK caution is different because the law in the UK is different. It's true that the UK caution omits the words "in writing", but that's unimportant. In the UK, just as in Ireland, if what you say in an interview is going to be put in evidence it will be written down and presented in court in writing. (Any video or audio recording will also be available, should either the prosecution or the defence wish to put them into evidence.

Here are the two cautions:

UK: “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.”

Ireland: "“You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but anything you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.”

The important difference, of course, is not the words "in writing"; they are unimportant. It's the fact that the UK warning tells you that your failure to say something could, in later circumstances, be used against you, whereas the Irish warning omits this.

The UK warning has this bit because UK law expressly provides that the prosecution can invite the court to draw adverse inferences from your silence in the circumstances mentioned. If, at the trial, you claim you were in Clacton-on-Sea while the crime was being committed in Dungeness and therefore cannot be the guilty party, the prosecution can point out that when you were first interviewed you never mentioned anything about being in Clacton, and they can ask the court to infer from this that maybe the Clacton alibi was something you cobbled together after the event, when you knew you were under suspicion.

Whereas in Ireland there is a constitutional right against self-incrimination, which means that (with very limited and specific exceptions) you are not bound to answer police questions and you cannot be punished, sanctioned or disadvantaged for not answering. So, Irish law does not allow the prosecution to invite the court to draw adverse inferences from the fact that you didn't provide information when you could have. So the Irish warning doesn't tell you that this might happen, becaus that would be a naughty fib; it can't happen.

cobhguy28

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK caution is different because the law in the UK is different. It's true that the UK caution omits the words "in writing", but that's unimportant. In the UK, just as in Ireland, if what you say in an interview is going to be put in evidence it will be written down and presented in court in writing. (Any video or audio recording will also be available, should either the prosecution or the defence wish to put them into evidence.

Here are the two cautions:

UK: “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.”

Ireland: "“You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but anything you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.”

The important difference, of course, is not the words "in writing"; they are unimportant. It's the fact that the UK warning tells you that your failure to say something could, in later circumstances, be used against you, whereas the Irish warning omits this.

The UK warning has this bit because UK law expressly provides that the prosecution can invite the court to draw adverse inferences from your silence in the circumstances mentioned. If, at the trial, you claim you were in Clacton-on-Sea while the crime was being committed in Dungeness and therefore cannot be the guilty party, the prosecution can point out that when you were first interviewed you never mentioned anything about being in Clacton, and they can ask the court to infer from this that maybe the Clacton alibi was something you cobbled together after the event, when you knew you were under suspicion.

Whereas in Ireland there is a constitutional right against self-incrimination, which means that (with very limited and specific exceptions) you are not bound to answer police questions and you cannot be punished, sanctioned or disadvantaged for not answering. So, Irish law does not allow the prosecution to invite the court to draw adverse inferences from the fact that you didn't provide information when you could have. So the Irish warning doesn't tell you that this might happen, becaus that would be a naughty fib; it can't happen.

Irish law does allow the the prosecution to invite the court to draw adverse inferences from the fact that you didn't provide information when you could have. However this has to be told to you before a specific question is asked and only where legislation allows it for a limited number of offences.

An example,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/29/section/29/enacted/en/html

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

(In fact it isn't necessary. An interview can be recorded and later transcribed in writing, and this is what is usually done if anything said in the interview is to be relied upon in court. But the recording and the transcript are available to the defence team.)
.

So why isn't this done then?
Interviews are written down by gardai & read back to the accused.
Why don't they just let the interview flow and then get it transcribed afterwards?

Peregrinus

bubblypop wrote: »

So why isn't this done then?
Interviews are written down by gardai & read back to the accused.
Why don't they just let the interview flow and then get it transcribed afterwards?

Because they want to invite the accused to sign the transcript at a time when he should still have a clear awareness of what was said/not said in the interview, I think.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because they want to invite the accused to sign the transcript at a time when he should still have a clear awareness of what was said/not said in the interview, I think.

Yes, that's what is always done. But there is obviously some reason?
If it is not required it would make interviewing suspects a lot more fluid

Peregrinus

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes, that's what is always done. But there is obviously some reason?
If it is not required it would make interviewing suspects a lot more fluid

They don't want to make it a lot more fluid. Their objective is not fluidity; it's building a robust prosecution case that will stand up in court.

To be clear, by the time we get to formal interviews under caution, answers written down, etc, etc, the guards have, or think they have, a pretty shrewd idea as to what has happened. They are not trying to gather information about what happened; they are trying to build admissible, robust evidence that it did happen.

At an earlier stage in the investigation, when they don't know what happened, don't have a prima facie case against any suspect, are still gather information and evaluating alternative possiblities, etc, etc. interviews are much less formal, normally don't involve any caution (unless you already have reason to think the person you are interviewing is guilty) etc etc. You're not at this stage trying to gather evidence; you're just conducting enquiries and looking for information. If you interview someone like this and, later on, he becomes your prime suspect and you are looking to charge him, you may interview him again, this time under caution, and put the same questions to him that you put to him before. You do this so that you can put his answers - if he gives them again - into evidence. The fact of the first interview, and the answer that he gave or didn't give them, will not go into evidence.

I do have experience with interviewing, both before and after the introduction of the recording of interviews.
On a personal note, interviews without a written memo being taken are much more fluid and natural.
Of course, I guess from the point of view of the suspect, and his counsel, non fluid interviews are better!

Peregrinus

bubblypop wrote: »

I do have experience with interviewing, both before and after the introduction of the recording of interviews.
On a personal note, interviews without a written memo being taken are much more fluid and natural.
Of course, I guess from the point of view of the suspect, and his counsel, non fluid interviews are better!

That's kind of the point. The privilege against self-incrimination, the Judges' Rules, etc, are all there to protect the individual against oppression by the considerable power and resources of the state.

Aguments in favour of relaxing the rules on the basis that doing so will make convictions easier to secure are not going to find much traction. The purpose of the rules is not to make convictions easier to secure; it's to make such convictions as are secured safer.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's kind of the point. The privilege against self-incrimination, the Judges' Rules, etc, are all there to protect the individual against oppression by the considerable power and resources of the state.

Aguments in favour of relaxing the rules on the basis that doing so will make convictions easier to secure are not going to find much traction. The purpose of the rules is not to make convictions easier to secure; it's to make such convictions as are secured safer.

Yes, of course!
Is there any obstacle to using the memo of the interview as evidence, if it is unsigned by the suspect?
There is a practise where unsigned memos are inserted into the statement of the gardai that conducted the interview, is it necessary at all, legally?

bigdaddymac

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes, of course!
Is there any obstacle to using the memo of the interview as evidence, if it is unsigned by the suspect?
There is a practise where unsigned memos are inserted into the statement of the gardai that conducted the interview, is it necessary at all, legally?

If the suspect refuses to sign there is legislation available under the recording of interview regulations

Peregrinus

bubblypop wrote: »

Yes, of course!
Is there any obstacle to using the memo of the interview as evidence, if it is unsigned by the suspect?
There is a practise where unsigned memos are inserted into the statement of the gardai that conducted the interview, is it necessary at all, legally?

You can put the unsigned statement into evidence, but you'll need a guard (or someone else) who was present at the interview to say, yes, I was there, I heard the defendant say what is written in that statement, the statement is accurate. (The person who gives this evidence will usually be the guard who wrote out the statement, but it doesn't have to be.) But of course the defendant can dispute that and say, no, that's not what I said, the written statement is not accurate (whcih is why I declined to sign it). Much harder for the defendant to dispute the statement if he has signed it.

Eire392

Peregrinus wrote: »

They don't want to make it a lot more fluid. Their objective is not fluidity; it's building a robust prosecution case that will stand up in court.

There is not a guard in the country that would agree with that

Peregrinus

Eire392 wrote: »

There is not a guard in the country that would agree with that

And not one prosecutor who would disagree with it!

Here's the thing: police consider a case to be closed when they charge somebody, or identify a person they would charge if they could; as far as they're concerned, at this point the crime is now solved. But prosecutors consider a case closed when they get a conviction.

So they have different priorities as regards the processes of criminal justice, which sometimes leads to differing views as to how those processes should be structured or implemented.

Samuel T. Cogley

One of the answers is cost. Transcription is expensive. A Clerical officer and a ten year old PC and a hand written memo is much cheaper.