I think they can. There are 2 scenarios. 1. Representation was declined 2. Representation was made available from the outset
Representation cannot interfere with or frustrate of guide an interview. They are there to provide legal advice when asked by their client. If that representation is declined, inferences can still be drawn from their account at court
can i ask when you last conducted a PACE interview……….as in my humble experience the whole purpose of their presence is exactly for this reason...
you gets me now then….it is quite funny on tape at the beginning to ask the solicitor to confirm on the tape what their role is in the interview….
Most of the mistakes we all make every day have only trivial results, but "honest mistakes" can result in deaths, ships sinking, airplanes crashing, or nuclear meltdowns. There have always been two possible approaches to punishing negligence: the punishment can be proportionate to the extent of the negligent actions subjectively; or proportionate to the consequences. The law seems to hover between the alternatives.
I agree that there certainly would not be any 'tariff', in the sense of a more severe sentence. The consequence would in terms of increased risk of a guilty verdict (because the jury is less likely to believe the defendant's story), and in some cases that would be substantial would it not?
Which seems very reasonable, depending upon the circumstances. I think an 'honest mistake' (negligence sounds so much worse) by a police officer should be at the more lenient end of the spectrum whilst a dishonest mistake should be at the harsher end.
Any debate has an end - either one side changes their position, agrees to disagree or the end of the meeting is reached. This is just going on and on, rehashing the same points. Andy isn't going to change his view that some police can lie - and I understand that - how would it look if a serving officer openly admitted that some police lie - and a lot of people here will disagree with him. A debate with you about the merits of the EU is a different thing - you may change your mind about big, expensive government without any impact on your career or income. This discussion has become somewhat pointless: it's just going round and round.
Jerry I was alluding to this a few days ago. However if others wish to continue the debate we don't have to read it nor respond, and actually by saying ffs stop surely you are perpetuating the debate .
you go to work in your big comfy city office tomorrow jerry………….the big boys will put their lives and reputations on the line for you if required……so everyone can debate it 12 months later….:wink: the end..
Andy now your just being provocative. What the majority of the police do is a worthwhile role within society and most officers serve without fear or prejudice. But surely your not blind to the frailties of your fellow officers? They are and always should be a reflection on society, not robocop with the ability to make snap decisions without fault or mistake .
Global Warming / Climate change debate hasn't ended...............Even though the sun (or is that The Sun?) has gone to sleep and now we are heading for an ice age.............. ........be a right laugh if it was true.........better start burning more coal (and petrol!!)
