Wow thats just truly shocking.
As a witness in UK a statement is not recorded unless its a sexual offence or a vulnerable witness or under 18 witness . Otherwise its written but it has to be read by the person making it and every page signed and any alteration initialled and if the witness does not like the way something is written or described then they ask to change it until is correct as can be. ALL have to be disclosed in advance of an interview with a suspect. To enable the suspect to know exactly what evidence they are up against. We also have to disclose in advance if a suspect interview 1. CCTV 2.FINGERPRINTS 3.DNA 4.Any other evidence that will be a factor in the case.
In relation to a suspect, our equivalent to your Miranda rights is the Caution which is as follows:
you do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned anything which you later wish to rely on in court , and anything you do say may be given in evidence .....
A mouthful but basically its self explanatory and if they give a set of circumstances / explanation in interview as they think on their feet but later at Court they give a totally different explanation and set of circumstances then an inference can be drawn and that inference can be one of guilt.
Its very strict in relation to recording all suspect interviews and they are sealed immediately with a copy for the police and a copy given immediately to the suspect before they leave custody so theres no way that they can be tampered with and also, recordings are dip sampled to ensure that the procedures used are adhered to AND all recordings are transcribed for reading out in Court and because of our very strict evidence disclosure laws, a legal representative will get a copy of the recorded interview and if when they listen to it , there is ANY evidence of improperly conducting the interview or the Police officers conducting the interview mention tangible evidence that wasnt mentioned during disclosure with the suspect prior to the interview then they will challenge the whole lot and ask for the case to be thrown out because of non compliance with policy and procedure!
Our system , in my opinion, unfortunately caters too much towards the suspect than the Victim (although we do stick to the innocent until proven guilty theory to the letter ) . Suspect rights and adherence to them are taken far more seriously than those of a victim . Its almost as if we bend over backwards to ensure that every suspect has a super fair trial, often at the expense of the victim.
But listening to you and others on here and watching ID channel etc on Sky, then I would much rather have our system than yours.
I have been horrified at some of the miscarriage of justice cases that Ive read about and how colloquial some of your small town Cop stations can be and some of the oppression used to get a conviction at any cost .
Furthermore, you can have a Murder conviction here without a body and we no longer have the double jeopardy rule BUT we cannot have ANY convictions solely based on circumstantial evidence or identification evidence or DNA/ Fingerprint evidence without it being supported by other real evidence.
Whereas Ive seen a few cases in USA where there is only circumstantial evidence available and there has been a guilty verdict and others where the whole case is based on Identification and you get a guilty verdict. This is strictly prohibited here in UK.
Also, Im amazed as to how cases are reported every step of the way, prior to the Court hearing, by both Prosecution and Defence attorneys in the USA.
We are again strictly prohibited against doing this and once a person has been charged / arraigned at their initial court appearance then we are by Law, unable to discuss the matter Publicly, wether that be in person or in the Media/Press/TV or on social media. Its called subjudice and the Subjudice laws and any breach of this can have the whole Indictment rescinded and the case dismissed. They are taken extremely seriously and so is any breach as its to ensure any suspect has a fair trial.
Sorry to go on but I wanted to give you the full picture in relation to UK versus USA trials.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow thats truly shocking!
As a witness in the UK a statement is not recorded unless its a sexual offence or a vulnerable witness or under 18 witness .
If its any of those then its Video recorded, otherwise its written but it has to be read by the person making it and every page signed and any alteration initialled. If the witness does not like the way something is written or described then they ask to change it until it is correct as can be. ALL have to be disclosed in advance of an interview with a suspect. This is to enable the suspect to know exactly what evidence they are up against. We also have to disclose in advance of a suspect interview the following:
1. CCTV evidence if offence is captured
2.FINGERPRINTS if recovered at the scene by Crime Scene Investigators
3.DNA if recovered
4.Any other evidence that will be a factor in the case.
In relation to a suspect, our equivalent to your Miranda rights is the Caution which is as follows:
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court , and anything you do say may be given in evidence .....
A mouthful but basically its self explanatory and if the Suspect gives a set of circumstances / explanation in the interview as they think on their feet but later at Court they give a totally different explanation and set of circumstances then an inference can be drawn and that inference can be one of guilt.
Its very strict in relation to recording all suspect interviews and they are sealed immediately with a copy for the Police and a copy given immediately to the suspect before they leave custody (so theres no way that they can be tampered with) . Also , recordings are dip sampled to ensure that the procedures used are adhered to AND all recordings are transcribed for reading out in Court . Because of our very strict evidence disclosure laws, a legal representative will get a copy of the recorded interview and if when they listen to it , there is ANY evidence of improperly conducting the interview or the Police officers during the interview mention tangible evidence that wasnt mentioned during disclosure with the suspect prior to the interview , then they will challenge the whole lot and ask for the case to be thrown out because of non compliance with policy and procedure! And ALL recordings are specially sealed and signed to prevent any issues around integrity arising.
Our system , in my opinion, unfortunately caters too much towards the suspect than the Victim (although we do stick to the innocent until proven guilty theory to the letter ) . Suspect rights and adherence to them are taken far more seriously than those of a victim . Its almost as if we bend over backwards to ensure that every suspect has a super fair trial, often at the expense of the victim.
But listening to you and others on here and watching ID channel etc on Sky, then I would much rather have our system than yours.
I have been horrified at some of the miscarriage of justice cases that Ive read about and how colloquial some of your small town Cop stations can be and some of the oppression used to get a conviction at any cost .
Furthermore, you can have a Murder conviction here without a body and we no longer have the double jeopardy rule BUT we cannot have ANY convictions solely based on circumstantial evidence or identification evidence or DNA/ Fingerprint evidence without it being supported by other real evidence.
Whereas Ive seen a few cases in USA where there is only circumstantial evidence available and there has been a guilty verdict and others where the whole case is based on Identification and you get a guilty verdict. This is strictly prohibited here in UK.
Also, Im amazed as to how cases are reported every step of the way, prior to the Court hearing, by both Prosecution and Defence attorneys in the USA.
We are again strictly prohibited against doing this and once a person has been charged / arraigned at their initial court appearance then we are by Law, unable to discuss the matter Publicly, wether that be in person or in the Media/Press/TV or on social media. Its called subjudice and the Subjudice laws and any breach of this can have the whole Indictment rescinded and the case dismissed. They are taken extremely seriously and so is any breach as its to ensure any suspect has a fair trial.
Sorry to go on but I wanted to give you the full picture in relation to UK versus USA trials.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
