Hi, everyone! Sorry for not really being around lately. I have a quick question -- how should you punctuate this England & Wales police caution? I usually see it like this: "You are under arrest on suspicion of (insert offence). You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." However, I naturally feel like it needs some extra commas every time I write it... "You are under arrest on suspicion of (insert offence). You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." It may seem like a very small thing to worry over, but it's really bugging me. Which version is correct? How would you write it?
I can't quote it because stupid iPad but on the ACPO website it gives a verbatim version of the caution which will be definitive in terms of wording and punctuation. I'm fairly sure that it also says ' something you later come to rely on in a court of law' I must admit that in my police books I tend toward the " you're nicked fucker. Say the words to him charlie " approach to save typing all that out.
I struggle with that kind of thing. There's how it's written in terms of the law (which i think was slightly altered recently but i haven't had the pleasure of hearing it). How it's said/heard depending on the person saying it or the situation they are saying it in. Then there is how it looks on the page when you write it. When they just reel it off the first point of punctuation is often the full stop before "Anything you do say may be given in evidence." like during a traffic stop when they find out you've got an outstanding warrant and they're focusing on cuffing you. When they are there for you and there is no struggle they add some more punctuation and when they're dragging you along struggling for breath after shouting stop resisting while giving you a beating it's puntuated by their breathing. It depends on the context and how the characters voice would say it.
I imagine there's a big difference between how you'd say it if you were making it up on the spot compared to a police officer who has memorised the lines and spoken them dozens of times. They have to say the right words in the right order, and I imagine pauses would disappear quite quickly, even if they increased comprehension..
I don’t know how they do it on your side of the puddle, but over here the speech is called the Miranda Warning (you have the right to remain silent blah blah blah), and they’re ‘supposed to read it to you from a standadized card to prevent any variation from one arrest to another. The argument has been presented in court that a defendant wasn’t properly mirandized because the arresting office recited from memory and possibly messed up. I know it sounds rediculous, but rapists have been let go because someone screwed up the time of arrest on the booking paperwork- didn’t specify am or pm, or was still writing 2017 after January 1. Sillier things have been argued and won.
That does happen over here on the rainy side too. The arrest is deemed to be false arrest or without caution because they failed to carry out the process in the right order or left out an important step in the process therefore affecting every stage after that point. But as long as the words were said at the right point of the process, or before a certain point. How they were said is not important as far as I can tell. Strangely it's something legal experts seem to have picked up from the layman self defenders who take it upon themselves to know the law... The layman knowing the law is often why they get arrested, figure that out? A person who choses a job that is to know, follow and uphold the law placing you under suspicion for knowing, following and trying to uphold the law. If that really is suspicious behaviour then who's the real problem in society?
