Letter: No point in talking when cautioned by police
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: As James Fenton argues ('Innocent until proven silent', 22 August), the new police caution fails to protect the innocent. It also fails to help convict the guilty, and promises to be a nightmare for arresting officers.
The old caution, in effect, advised a suspect to remain silent, but the new caution advises him to talk. But what is he to say? If he admits an offence, this constitutes an uncorroborated confession, which is not admissible as evidence. If he lies, then that wastes police time. If he is innocent, the chances are he has nothing useful to contribute. What is the point of advising him to start talking?
Having advised a subject to talk, the police are obliged not only to listen, but to provide facilities for accurately recording the suspect's words. However, cautions are often issued when no such facilities are available. Will there be one caution for use on the streets, another for use in the station? Apparently not. Will arresting officers who are physically unable to take down a suspect's words be later accused of suppressing evidence? What happens if the officer omits part of this unwieldy recitation? We shall see.
Yours sincerely,
RHODRI POWELL
Guildford
23 August
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments