lulz owned~ari said:What happens if you get arrested and charged but never got cautioned?
I'm talking about a 'right to remain silent etc' caution not a 'don't do it again little man' cautionhistorykidd said:lulz owned
what did you do?
the only time i've been arrested i was granted a warning rather than a caution
wouldn't have a fucking clue if that applies here but
well that sounds a bit more serious :| sorry mate im utterly useless here.~ari said:I'm talking about a 'right to remain silent etc' caution not a 'don't do it again little man' caution
If your matter goes to trial, then anything you did or said after arrest may not be used as evidence against you. It's a pretty serious oversight.~ari said:I'm talking about a 'right to remain silent etc' caution not a 'don't do it again little man' caution
1. If you got arrested and charged then you (mostly) go to court.~ari said:What happens if you get arrested and charged but never got cautioned?
23F Cautioning persons who are under arrest or protected suspectsTimbo650 said:16. While there is a common law duty to caution an arrested person, "Mirandising" like you see on American cop shows generally does not happen.
*1984* said:23F Cautioning persons who are under arrest or protected suspects
(1) Subject to subsection (3), if a person is under arrest or a protected suspect, an investigating official must, before starting to question the person, caution the person that he or she does not have to say or do anything, but that anything the person does say or do may be used in evidence.
Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth)
I highly doubt this. As far as the courts are concerned, anything that's said without a caution was never said at all. If this was truly the case, then anyone who knew a friend-of-a-friend's second cousin who's a lawyer specializing in conveyancing would be able to get off.Timbo650 said:Look at what said.
I did not say "the law does not require..."
I said that it generally didn't happen. By which I mean IRL and regardless of what the law requires.
And the OP hasn't exactly answered the original questions...
< shrug >hfis said:I highly doubt this. As far as the courts are concerned, anything that's said without a caution was never said at all. If this was truly the case, then anyone who knew a friend-of-a-friend's second cousin who's a lawyer specializing in conveyancing would be able to get off.
It doesn't matter what 'common practice' for the police happens to be. The courts take the rights of the accused extremely seriously, and the case law and legislation reflects this. The police are not so stupid as to disregard it.
From my understanding and interpretation of the Evidence Act, the concept of arrest is not merely confined to the black letter idea of communicating 'you are are under arrest'..Timbo650 said:4. Chances are that you were not "arrested", thus were not cautioned.
I concur. Consider also that the AFP will often proceed via summons, and/or will often seek an arrest warrant, rather than exercise their "traditional" power to arrest on suspicion without a warrant.incentivation said:The very fact that he was charged with an offence clearly shows that at some point, the officers were under the belief that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he committed the offence, and thus under arrest in accordance with the act..