h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In Australia we also have a similar legal convention to the Miranda ruling. When the police speak to a person about a criminal matter, and that person is under arrest, they must be cautioned. The courts have not established a set phrase that MUST be used, this is what we use in N.S.W at the moment.

"I am going to ask you some questions, you do not have to say or do anything unless you wish to do so. Do you understand this?"
"Anything you do say will be recorded and may be used in court as evidence. Do you understand this?"

In N.S.W we tend to caution sooner rather than later, and it is not unusual for a suspect to be cautioned several times. For instance in an electronically recorded interview when the cassette tapes get changed, the suspect gets cautioned again.
The important thing to remember is that the caution protects both the investigator and the suspect. By cautioning it shows that we have made the suspect fully aware of his rights. Therefor when he makes a `full and frank confession' that evidence is unlikely to get thrown out at court.

An earlier post spoke about making suspects fully aware of there right s under the Miranda convention. In N.S.W we are required to give all persons arrested a copy of a form, Part 10A, this covers all there legal rights whilst in custody. It tells them what they are entitled to do, and also what the police are entitled to do. Anyway thats enough from me, I just thought it would be interesting to give you an Australian perspective on the Miranda convention.

I appreciate it. I've heard about people being cautioned in the UK. I hadn't actually seen anything about it. It's always interesting to see how different counties deal with the same things.

I have a friend who went over to the Netherlands and rode along with one of their officers. It's a whole 'nother world.

Out of curiosity, what does N.S.W. stand for? Also, is your caution mandated by the courts or by statute?

I guess to begin with N.S.W stands for New South Wales. Australia inherited Britain's system of common law when it was colonised in 1788. In 1901 we became an independant country, but retained our links to the British legal system. Since then our courts and parliaments have further developed our legal system. However we are still very similar to Britain in many ways. Each State and Territory has its own Court hierachy, with the Federal court and High Court acting as appeals courts for the states.

In N.S.W our police caution is established in Section 139 B of the Evidence Act 1995. It says that for evidence to be admissable in court the investigator must "caution the person that the person does not have to say or do anything but that anything the person does say or do may be used in evidence." The Act does not define the way in which the caution must be given. It allows the police discretion to take into account the persons, age, level of intoxication, etc. The Act only says that we have to ensure that the suspect has an understanding of his rights.

However the Courts have made rulings about how police have or have not fulfilled this obligation. As a result the Police Service has developed a set phrase for police to use. This has changed as the courts have set new precedents in relation to the caution.

I am making a guess that you're from the U.S given the American focus of your project. Are the Miranda's Warnings supported by legislation in America, or by court rulings following Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

It is interesting to get different perspectives on the law in different parts of the world.

You'd be right. Currently, I'm a Georgian. The land of Smoky and the Bandit. Actually, a fair bit of it was filmed around here.

Miranda is pretty much all derived from court decsions. The Dickerson decison was the result of Congress trying to modify the way the Miranda decision was applied. In my view, Congress was acting within the limits defined by the Miranda decsion, but apparently, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Actually, the Dickerson decsion is kind of interesting. For some hyper-technical reasons that probably wouldn't be iof any interest to anyone but me.

Slightly off topic, but how long can you keep someone in custody for in America before you have to either release them or charge them. In N.S.W we are limited to four hours investigation time. This is not as restrictive as it may sound as there are a number of time outs, such as waiting for a lawyer, suspect making telephone calls, waiting for specialist officers such as detectives or forensics. Also at the end of that 4 hours, you can apply to a magistrate to get a detention warrant for up to another 8 hours. Obviously the time someone is kept in custody must be reasonable, keeping a shoplifter in the dock for several hours would probably result in the case being thrown out, and your supervisor putting you on paper for neglect. I'm interested on how this compares to what happens in the states.

Also do you record your suspect interviews on sound and video tape.If so for what sort of offences do you do this. In N.S.W we have to ERISP, Electronically Recorded Interview of Suspect Person, all persons suspected of Strictly indictable offences. What this really means is that we now record most interviews on the machine. It is rare to do get a notebook statement, or type a statement for a suspect. Of course most good suspects refuse to say anything, so it eliminates the problem altogether.

In the UK, the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act 1984 applies, specicaly section 3.1;
"When a person is brought to a police station under arrest or is arrested at the police station having attended there voluntarily, the custody officer must tell him clearly of the following rights and of the fact that they are continuing rights which may be exercised at any stage during the period in custody.

(i) the right to have someone informed of his arrest in accordance with section 5 below;

(ii) the right to consult privately with a solicitor and the fact that independent legal advice is available free of charge; and

(iii) the right to consult these codes of practice."

I should add there is a similiar clause appling to the arrest proceedure.

*note to self: must proof read before hitting post button*

I feel your pain. We need a spell checker something feirce on this board.

I tend type longer postings in a word processor & then cut and paste but I was in a hurry last night :-/ (*quick plug: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F19585?thread=98809&post=979781#p979781*)

The Supreme Court has set a guideline of 48 hours.

I've never really been clear at what point a person is charged. I don't think the word actually means anything here.

In Georgia, if a person is arrested without a warrant, they must be brought before a magistrate within 48 hours for a hearing to determine probable cause. If a person is arrested pursuant to a warrant, they must be brought before a judge in 72 hours.

We do have one exception to all this. If we arrest someone for traffic charges or ordinance violations (basically anything that we can issue a ticket for) then the judge doesn't have a hearing to determine probable cause. As I understand it (I'm not sure because we're never at these hearings), if a person is arrested on tickets, then and they can't post bond, then they have a hearing to lower the bond amount.

Also, once we arrest someone, it's not a matter of releasing or charging a person. If we arrest them, they're being going before the judge.

When I was a detective, I recorded most of my suspect interviews. If they came to headquarters, I'd take them to the interview room most of the time. We had the room rigged for video. Sometimes we'd take victims or witnesses there too if we needed to pressure them to determine if they were lying or being truthful.

Out in the field, I always carry a pocket recorder, but I don't use it very much. I use it mostly to help me when I write my report. Occasionally, I'll put the tape into evidence if I think it will be necessary or useful later. I have a box full of them in my garage from my days as a detective.

If we're going to preserve a person's statement, we'll just ask them to write it out. They almost always cooperate. The only people who seem to be reluctant to give statements are victims. That way everyone can have a copy, and you don't have to check stuff out of the evidence room or make copies of tapes.

Almost everyone we arrest and want to speak with winds up saying something to us. Even if it's a denial, we can usually get something out of them that will help our case or impeach their's. Our detectives are really good at it. Unless the suspect is a real hard case, they almost always talk to me. I've had pretty good luck with being friendly and helpful. The only people that hasn't work with are kids from the hood. Then again, I'm about the whitest person in America, and I have difficulty in establishing a rapport with them.