You do not have to say anything but...

[martybabes]

...it may harm your defence if you fail etc.

This well-known phrase, which replaced the official caution some years ago, was introduced so that Defendants couldn't spring a surprise defence in court. They had to "cough" at the time of interview rather than have the time to invent a defence between arrest and trial.

Now it occurs to me that when RP staff, or their ilk, write to persons inviting them to explain the circumstances of their failure to have the right ticket or any ticket, the letter should contain a similar caution to the effect that they are not obliged to say anything etc. Does anyone know if this happens?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Does anyone know if this happens?

It doesn't. (assuming that you are asking if the template letters which are sent to passengers under Investigation contain a corresponding advisory note).

However, I'm not persuaded that the two circumstances are properly comparable in terms of process and liabilities. The letter to which the passenger must address their reasons is considered very much after the event, whereas the Police caution is generally given when interviewing a suspect at, or close to, the time of the incident. Your reference to having "time to invent a defence" would be after the initial interview at the incident but long before trial, whereas the letter you are referring to is already some time after the incident (by which time a story could already have been fabricated in detail).

Wouldn't it be more helpful, to Prosecutors and passengers, if the Caution was issued at the time of detection (during or immediately after travel). Then any subsequently fabricated story could be tested against the statement given, or withheld, at the time of that initial interview? This would, of course, require Railway Inspectors to be trained and registerd in PACE / SOCPA procedures, which, in itself, might be quite intimidating to passengers and counter to the industry's wish to appear customer-friendly.

 

[soil]

The new caution was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and applies only to individuals being interviewed by the police under caution.

It's intended to stop people springing new defences in serious criminal cases.

Petty instances of fare evasion prosecuted by private companies are well outside its scope.

 

[martybabes]

applies only to individuals being interviewed by the police under caution.

It's intended to stop people springing new defences in serious criminal cases.

Petty instances of fare evasion prosecuted by private companies are well outside its scope.

I don't think I agree with this. I think the PACE Codes of Practice refer to the caution, and of course it applies to all criminal investigations not just to those carried out by the police (and let's face it there are many dozens of Government Agencies and others authorised to conduct criminal prosecutions).

 

[Mojo]

I have heard this caution be read by Inspectors when questioning customers on the spot, after they have provided their details.

 

[martybabes]

Wouldn't it be more helpful, to Prosecutors and passengers, if the Caution was issued at the time of detection (during or immediately after travel). Then any subsequently fabricated story could be tested against the statement given, or withheld, at the time of that initial interview? This would, of course, require Railway Inspectors to be trained and registerd in PACE / SOCPA procedures, which, in itself, might be quite intimidating to passengers and counter to the industry's wish to appear customer-friendly.

If Railway Inspectors are "detaining" people with a view to questioning them about a possible fraud (an intentional failure to purchase a ticket) then surely that is the time when the caution should be given. Do you know what is happening at this "initial interview" you mentioned? If it is about the possibility of a passenger not being in possession of a valid ticket, I would expect a formal caution to be given then. The interview clearly is in relation to the investigation of a criminal offence (to which the provisions of PACE apply and perforce the Codes of Practice).

Additionally, do Railway Inspectors have a power of arrest (other than a so-called Citizen's Arrest)? I don't know if they do (I suspect not). Maybe if a few passengers were read their rights, especially if they watch a lot of American Cop shows, they - and others - may be more inclined to buy a ticket!

 

[maniacmartin]

Additionally, do Railway Inspectors have a power of arrest (other than a so-called Citizen's Arrest)? I don't know if they do (I suspect not). Maybe if a few passengers were read their rights, especially if they watch a lot of American Cop shows, they - and others - may be more inclined to buy a ticket!

I believe this covers it (my bold)

(2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

 

[talltim]

Why are laws written like this? What about women? Simply changing 'him' to 'them' and 'he' to 'they' would do it, for nothing more than an extra letter or two per instance

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Why are laws written like this? What about women? Simply changing 'him' to 'them' and 'he' to 'they' would do it, . . .

We lived in a very different society in 1889 ! And the use of the plural noun and pronoun to avoid gender-specific terms hadn't been thought of.

Don't you think that there were enough problems with society when 'his' would include a man's wife, servants, children and other 'owned' dependents and class differentiation determined what one could even aspire to?

 

[marcouk2]

Why are laws written like this? What about women? Simply changing 'him' to 'them' and 'he' to 'they' would do it, for nothing more than an extra letter or two per instance

Because of:

The Interpretation Act 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 21) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in 1850 that simplified the language that was used in statutes.... it stated that the masculine includes the feminine (thus enabling "he" to be written instead of "he or she"), unless expressly indicated otherwise.

 

[Fare-Cop]

If Railway Inspectors are "detaining" people with a view to questioning them about a possible fraud (an intentional failure to purchase a ticket) then surely that is the time when the caution should be given. Do you know what is happening at this "initial interview" you mentioned? If it is about the possibility of a passenger not being in possession of a valid ticket, I would expect a formal caution to be given then. The interview clearly is in relation to the investigation of a criminal offence (to which the provisions of PACE apply and perforce the Codes of Practice). Before anyone who is particularly sensitive gets upset by being called a 'suspect', that is the correct term as defined by these rules in referring to someone who is suspected of having committed an offence.

Additionally, do Railway Inspectors have a power of arrest (other than a so-called Citizen's Arrest)? I don't know if they do (I suspect not). Maybe if a few passengers were read their rights, especially if they watch a lot of American Cop shows, they - and others - may be more inclined to buy a ticket!

The rubbish that is 'American Cop jargon' is one of the things that really confuses people in my experience.

A majority of people these days seem to refer to being 'read my rights' rather than being 'Cautioned', which is of course the correct term.

Yes, all inspectors of my acquaintance are trained to Caution the 'suspect' in line with P.A.C.E. (1984) Codes of Practice as soon as they believe that an offence has been committed, they must ensure that the person being questioned understands the caution and to make contemporaneous notes throughout the questioning, which will be read aloud to that person on completion and an opportunity to sign them should be given.

If the person being cautioned indicates that they do not understand then an explanation of what the caution means can be given. It is not essential to caution a person in order to report an offence, but a failure to do so may mean that any comments made during questioning might not be taken in to consideration in Court at a later date.

This authority to caution is not restricted to Police officers as suggested by soil. It is a procedure to be followed by many investigators engaged in interviewing to gather evidence to report crime.

Yes, there is still a specific 'power' of arrest under Section 5.2 of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) in certain circumstances, but inspectors will normally seek Police assistance where a need to arrest is thought by the inspector to be essential.

 

[revenueadvice]

Revenue Protection Inspectors are trained in PACE and can and should caution at the time an offence is detected. The difference between what the Police say and what RPI's say is that the RPI should tell the person that they are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time.

 

[martybabes]

The rubbish that is 'American Cop jargon' is one of the things that really confuses people in my experience.

A majority of people these days seem to refer to being 'read my rights' rather than being 'Cautioned', which is of course the correct term.

Yes, all inspectors of my acquaintance are trained to Caution the 'suspect' in line with P.A.C.E. (1984) Codes of Practice as soon as they believe that an offence has been committed, they must ensure that the person being questioned understands the caution and to make contemporaneous notes throughout the questioning, which will be read aloud to that person on completion and an opportunity to sign them should be given.

If the person being cautioned indicates that they do not understand then an explanation of what the caution means can be given. It is not essential to caution a person in order to report an offence, but a failure to do so may mean that any comments made during questioning might not be taken in to consideration in Court at a later date.

This authority to caution is not restricted to Police officers as suggested by soil. It is a procedure to be followed by many investigators engaged in interviewing to gather evidence to report crime.

Yes, there is still a specific 'power' of arrest under Section 5.2 of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) in certain circumstances, but inspectors will normally seek Police assistance where a need to arrest is thought by the inspector to be essential.

That's very helpful. Many thanks.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Revenue Protection Inspectors are trained in PACE and can and should caution at the time an offence is detected. The difference between what the Police say and what RPI's say is that the RPI should tell the person that they are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time.

So should a Police Officer if s/he has not told already the person that they are under arrest and for what reason they have been arrested!

 

[Llanigraham]

So should a Police Officer if s/he has not told already the person that they are under arrest and for what reason they have been arrested!

Look up the meaning of "arrest"!

Any person issued with the PACE caution hasn't been "arrested", but has been cautioned that he may be charged with an offence. The two things are very different.

A PACE Caution can be issued by a Council Food Standards Inspector for contravention of the Food Hygiene laws, for example, but they can't arrest the miscreant. Ditto by a VOSA Inpector for Vehicle Construction and Use misdemeanors. There are many similar examples.

 

[talltim]

Because of:

:
Originally Posted by Interpretation Act 1850
The Interpretation Act 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 21) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in 1850 that simplified the language that was used in statutes.... it stated that the masculine includes the feminine (thus enabling "he" to be written instead of "he or she"), unless expressly indicated otherwise.

That complicates it, not simplifies it.

 

[Mojo]

Why are laws written like this? What about women? Simply changing 'him' to 'them' and 'he' to 'they' would do it, for nothing more than an extra letter or two per instance

I have always thought it a standard part of the English language for the male form to include both genders unless stated otherwise, in a similar nature to languages like Spanish where the masculine is often used for plurals (for instance padre = father and padres = parents, and nobody thinks you are talking about a same-sex couple!)

 

[soil]

This authority to caution is not restricted to Police officers as suggested by soil. It is a procedure to be followed by many investigators engaged in interviewing to gather evidence to report crime.

You have it wrong.

There exists no specific authority to caution, rather the caution is a legal requirement (or a set of requirements including the right to legal advice) incumbent on police constables interviewing suspects.

Anyone at all, be it Walter Mitty or the Tesco security guard can issue whatever kind of caution he chooses, and it might be good practice to do so if only because it makes the miscreant fess up to his far dodging/shoplifting/whatever, but the point of the caution is that under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act s34 inferences can be drawn from a suspect's silence when interviewed BY A CONSTABLE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why are laws written like this? What about women? Simply changing 'him' to 'them' and 'he' to 'they' would do it, for nothing more than an extra letter or two per instance

No it wouldn't. 'Them' and 'they' are plural. 'He' on the other hand has been used as a non-gender-specific pronoun for many years.

With the exception perhaps of certain sexual offences, it is obvious that any reference to 'he' in legislation would apply equally to women.

 

[talltim]

It's not that obvious, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, I doubt that many laws are written with only one person in mind, so the plural is quite appropriate

 

[soil]

It's not that obvious, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also, I doubt that many laws are written with only one person in mind, so the plural is quite appropriate

In most cases the law applies to a single offender. There many be such offenders across the country, but the individual crimes are generally committed by individuals, not groups.

 

[talltim]

Appologies everyone, I seem to be I none of those contrary moods today.

 

[martybabes]

You have it wrong.

There exists no specific authority to caution, rather the caution is a legal requirement (or a set of requirements including the right to legal advice) incumbent on police constables interviewing suspects.

Anyone at all, be it Walter Mitty or the Tesco security guard can issue whatever kind of caution he chooses, and it might be good practice to do so if only because it makes the miscreant fess up to his far dodging/shoplifting/whatever, but the point of the caution is that under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act s34 inferences can be drawn from a suspect's silence when interviewed BY A CONSTABLE.

No, I am sorry but you have it wrong.
See S. 67(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
See also PACE Code of Practice C which says when a caution must be given.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And may I also draw your attention to S. 34(4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in relation to the caution?

 

[Fare-Cop]

No, I am sorry but you have it wrong.
See S. 67(9) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
See also PACE Code of Practice C which says when a caution must be given.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And may I also draw your attention to S. 34(4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in relation to the caution?

Exactly so, and that is the standard that relevant staff are trained to observe.

PACE (84) is applicable not only to police officers but to anyone with conduct of a criminal investigation including any person with a duty of investigating criminal offences or charging offenders. All such persons are required to follow the provisions of the PACE codes of practice.

 

[Muzer]

No it wouldn't. 'Them' and 'they' are plural. 'He' on the other hand has been used as a non-gender-specific pronoun for many years.

On the contrary, "them" and "they" have been used as non-gender-specific nouns for much longer than many Grammar Nazis* realise.

Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

There's no reason IMHO why this couldn't have been adopted as a legal term (obviously it wasn't), and it should certainly be used today over other much uglier/more convoluted constructs like he/she in most writing.


* For lack of a better term - I'm one myself from time to time

 

[Fare-Cop]

Look up the meaning of "arrest"!

Any person issued with the PACE caution hasn't been "arrested", but has been cautioned that he may be charged with an offence. The two things are very different.

A PACE Caution can be issued by a Council Food Standards Inspector for contravention of the Food Hygiene laws, for example, but they can't arrest the miscreant. Ditto by a VOSA Inpector for Vehicle Construction and Use misdemeanors. There are many similar examples.

Exactly, I don't think we disagree on the basis of what the PACE caution is, but just because a person has been cautioned by a Police officer does not mean s/he is automatically arrested!

It may be that a Police officer is in exactly the same position as an RPI on occasion, believing that a criminal offence has been committed and 'cautions a suspect' to ask further questions.

The suspect does not have to be arrested to do that and in such circumstances, if the 'suspect' asks the Police Officer 'Am I under arrest?' unless that officer has established grounds to arrest, s/he should say 'No'.

 

[Llanigraham]

Exactly, I don't think we disagree on the basis of what the PACE caution is, but just because a person has been cautioned by a PERSON does not mean s/he is automatically arrested!

It may be that a PERSON is in exactly the same position as an RPI on occasion, believing that a criminal offence has been committed and 'cautions a suspect' to ask further questions.

The suspect does not have to be arrested to do that and in such circumstances, if the 'suspect' asks the PERSON 'Am I under arrest?' unless that officer has established grounds to arrest, s/he should say 'No'.

I've corrected the above for you, as you seem to be fixated upon Police Officers and PACE, which is not the case. Many people can and do caution under PACE every day, who are not Police Officers.

 

[PermitToTravel]

My understanding of the arrest matter is that someone being interviewed by an RPI is not under arrest. However, should the person wish to leave before giving their name and address, they can then be arrested by any officer of the railway company, per the Regulation of the Railways Act 1889 s 5(2):

If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

I think this creates a situation where, should the person run away before their particulars are asked for, but after having shown a ticket, there is no power for an RPI to arrest them. However, an offence has still been committed, and any present constable could thusly arrest per section 24(5)(a) of PACE (as rewritten in section 104 of the Serious Organised Crime and Policing Act 2005):

(4)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.
(5)The reasons are—
(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name)

(before SOCPA, a constable could only arrest under PACE for offences triable by indictment or either way, not for "summary-only" offences, which I think all the RORA ones are)

 

[Fare-Cop]

I've corrected the above for you, as you seem to be fixated upon Police Officers and PACE, which is not the case. Many people can and do caution under PACE every day, who are not Police Officers.

That is exactly what I have said - 3 times now! For avoidance of doubt, see quote below!

Exactly so, and that is the standard that relevant staff are trained to observe.

PACE (84) is applicable not only to police officers but to anyone with conduct of a criminal investigation including any person with a duty of investigating criminal offences or charging offenders. All such persons are required to follow the provisions of the PACE codes of practice.

What are you seeing that is different to what I have written?

You are wrong to have changed my references from 'a Police Officer' to 'a person'. In the context of what I have written in that particular post, my references are correct.

A Police Officer does not have to arrest in order to caution and neither does anyone else! That was the point to which I was responding. (revenueadvice post #12 )

You appear to have misread the post that I was responding to in the first place.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

On the matter of railway Inspectors questioning a passenger under PACE procedures, I can confirm that Fare-Cop and martybabes are quite correct.

That is exactly what I have said - 3 times now! .

 

[glasgowguy1984]

This will annoy certain members I'm sure but the simple answer when being questioned/interviewed/casual chat by an official over anything not just railway related give your identity, dob then shut up! Police are pretty poor at catching actual hardened criminals because they're automatic response is "no comment till I see my brief", only idiots or people who genuinely feel they have done nothing wrong sit and spill the beans to an interviewer making it much easier to "get them for something". Sad but true, act like a criminal/professional "no comment" to everything and seek legal advice.