[conspire] OT: More about conversations with police (was: Here in the 100-mile border zone)

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):

> In particular, the UK police "caution" (moral equivalent of the
> Miranda Rights Statement) goes like this:
> 
> 	You do not have to say anything,
> 	but it may harm your defence if you do not mention,
> 	when questioned,
> 	something you later rely on in court.
> 	Anything you do say may be given in evidence. 

Just so you know, the term 'police caution' actually has a different
traditional meaning in UK law that's more common -- referring to a
formal warning for matters not _quite_ appearing to justify referral to
prosecutors for charging and trial.  A condition of the matter in
question being limited to a police caution is the subject admitting
guilt.  If not, then the matter does get referred to prosecutors, who
might bring an indictment.
https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty

US criminal law has nothing quite like that, and, honestly, it's
something that ought to be considered, IMO.

But you're of course right that the police statement you refer to is
_also_ called a caution -- a caution on arrest of the right to silence.  
And the bit about warning chargees that inferences _may_ be drawn from
their silence reflects a sea change in UK criminal law that occurred in
1994, the 'Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994', sections 34-37,
which you can read here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossheading/inferences-from-accuseds-silence

Prior to 1994, no such inferences could be lawfully drawn, but
Parliament acted because a 1991 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
argued that 'professional criminals' were exploiting the right to remain
silence, whereas ordinary decent folk had no need for such reticence,
blah blah blah.

If you believe Wikipedia, here's a rundown on the result (outside NI, at
least):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence


> The next point was about the suspect's perceived flight from the
> officer who first saw him.  I just muttered under my breath, "Mr.
> Finch, you'd run too." at which point the Foreman insisted I explain
> what I meant.  If you ever need someone who can summarise key points
> of American literature to a hostile audience in record time,
> apparently I'm your man because that bit got voluntarily de-emphasised
> as well.

I find myself wishing for video.  ;->