Offensive beach graffiti

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

John,  what happens when you get these call outs? What’s your role as duty advocate in such circumstances? 

VoR. You know exactly. Even if you’ve not been arrested and questioned yourself. You’ll have watched police procedurals.

When PACE ( PPP in IoM ) was introduced it introduced a whole raft of new police powers, adverse inferences, holding times for the police. Most of all there was a change in the right of silence and the fact that “if you do not mention,  when questioned, something that you later rely on in court” the court may decide that what the detained person ( DP ) says in court isn’t true because it wasn’t raised in interview.

The quid pro quo to protect people arrested, reduced into custody, who the police want to interview was duty solicitors/advocates.

I don’t go because the police require me. I go because the detained person has requested that I attend. And, under the regulations, my attendance is compulsory if requested and there is going to be an interview, and if the DP is a juvenile, or someone who has learning or intellectual deficits. The police have some discretion, so in a drink/drug drive they don’t interview, they breathalyse or get blood samples. Time is of the essence, but the Duty Advocate won’t be called. The DP May phone for advice as to whether they have to give a sample ( answer is yes, the penalty for “fail provide” is higher than most court sentences for the substantive offence )

My first job is to check the custody record, ensure the detention is regular and that the DP has had his rights, been fed and watered, seen by the FME ( if appropriate ), been reviewed by an inspector at the appropriate time intervals. Also to check that the arrest and circumstances in which the custody sergeant has authorised detention actually justify remaining in custody. Occasionally they don’t and I can challenge and get someone released.

Then I receive disclosure from the investigating/interviewing team, so I have a better idea of the allegations the DP faces and what evidence the police have. If there’s CCTV I’ll be shown that.

Next I see the DP in consultation. Explain my role. Explain what is being alleged. Explain my role is to try and improve their position by legal advice, insofar as that is possible, and to advise about interview technique and strategy.

The basic advice, bearing in mind the presumption of innocence, the ( diminished ) right of silence, the fact that burden of proof is on prosecution, is that you never advise a client to say anything unless it will improve their situation. Things that might improve are mistaken identity, alibi, consent etc.

So starting point is no comment. Some people want to get it off their  chests and answer in full, but that’s dangerous. Disclosure is never full, often barely adequate. The DP may drop themselves in it, unintentionally. About 60% of the time there’s a middle way, a short written statement, disclosing things that improve the position of the DP, followed by a no comment recorded interview.

Clearly that’d be the correct way of raising an alibi or mistaken identity, or self defence.

But it’s much more subtle and nuanced. In certain circumstances the DP may be entitled to a diversionary disposal, not involving court. Attending an educational scheme, a referral scheme, or accepting a caution. However there’s got to be sufficient admission of an identifiable offence, and the DP has to meet criteria, age, previous good character, suitability. So that needs to be weighed up and appropriate advice given.

It’s the interview of the DP, so the duty advocate advises. The DP decides to accept the advice or ignore.

Final stage is interview. I’m there to continue advising, ensuring that the interview isn’t oppressive and the questions relate to the offence for which DP has been arrested. DP can ask the interview be paused to seek further advice, or I can suggest that is necessary.

After interview the custody sergeant decides what happens next, bail, charge, nfa, and I can make representations.

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Why are you needed in such circumstances? Are the police allowed to use their discretion, if so is your presence just a formality or legal requirement?

I’ve tried to explain discretion, the police have limited discretion, they also, subject to rules of detention periods, and searches, evidence gathering, and fitness to be interviewed, have a discretion when to call. But, that apart, once DP is going to be interviewed and has requested, they’ve got to make the call and the duty advocate has to attend. It’s mandatory. In fact, if the DP doesn’t request duty advocate the custody sergeant will try to persuade them. It protects the police against allegations of improper detention, interview, pressure, which might render the interview inadmissible.
 

[Albert Tatlock]

All this useful info has given me the incentive to write my own Isle of Man based cop series...

...it's pretty original, I've never heard of a cop series based on a small island before...

...think I'll call the hero 'Burgerkelly'.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

VoR. You know exactly. Even if you’ve not been arrested and questioned yourself. You’ll have watched police procedurals.

When PACE ( PPP in IoM ) was introduced it introduced a whole raft of new police powers, adverse inferences, holding times for the police. Most of all there was a change in the right of silence and the fact that “if you do not mention,  when questioned, something that you later rely on in court” the court may decide that what the detained person ( DP ) says in court isn’t true because it wasn’t raised in interview.

The quid pro quo to protect people arrested, reduced into custody, who the police want to interview was duty solicitors/advocates.

I don’t go because the police require me. I go because the detained person has requested that I attend. And, under the regulations, my attendance is compulsory if requested and there is going to be an interview, and if the DP is a juvenile, or someone who has learning or intellectual deficits. The police have some discretion, so in a drink/drug drive they don’t interview, they breathalyse or get blood samples. Time is of the essence, but the Duty Advocate won’t be called. The DP May phone for advice as to whether they have to give a sample ( answer is yes, the penalty for “fail provide” is higher than most court sentences for the substantive offence )

My first job is to check the custody record, ensure the detention is regular and that the DP has had his rights, been fed and watered, seen by the FME ( if appropriate ), been reviewed by an inspector at the appropriate time intervals. Also to check that the arrest and circumstances in which the custody sergeant has authorised detention actually justify remaining in custody. Occasionally they don’t and I can challenge and get someone released.

Then I receive disclosure from the investigating/interviewing team, so I have a better idea of the allegations the DP faces and what evidence the police have. If there’s CCTV I’ll be shown that.

Next I see the DP in consultation. Explain my role. Explain what is being alleged. Explain my role is to try and improve their position by legal advice, insofar as that is possible, and to advise about interview technique and strategy.

The basic advice, bearing in mind the presumption of innocence, the ( diminished ) right of silence, the fact that burden of proof is on prosecution, is that you never advise a client to say anything unless it will improve their situation. Things that might improve are mistaken identity, alibi, consent etc.

So starting point is no comment. Some people want to get it off their  chests and answer in full, but that’s dangerous. Disclosure is never full, often barely adequate. The DP may drop themselves in it, unintentionally. About 60% of the time there’s a middle way, a short written statement, disclosing things that improve the position of the DP, followed by a no comment recorded interview.

Clearly that’d be the correct way of raising an alibi or mistaken identity, or self defence.

But it’s much more subtle and nuanced. In certain circumstances the DP may be entitled to a diversionary disposal, not involving court. Attending an educational scheme, a referral scheme, or accepting a caution. However there’s got to be sufficient admission of an identifiable offence, and the DP has to meet criteria, age, previous good character, suitability. So that needs to be weighed up and appropriate advice given.

It’s the interview of the DP, so the duty advocate advises. The DP decides to accept the advice or ignore.

Final stage is interview. I’m there to continue advising, ensuring that the interview isn’t oppressive and the questions relate to the offence for which DP has been arrested. DP can ask the interview be paused to seek further advice, or I can suggest that is necessary.

After interview the custody sergeant decides what happens next, bail, charge, nfa, and I can make representations.

I’ve tried to explain discretion, the police have limited discretion, they also, subject to rules of detention periods, and searches, evidence gathering, and fitness to be interviewed, have a discretion when to call. But, that apart, once DP is going to be interviewed and has requested, they’ve got to make the call and the duty advocate has to attend. It’s mandatory. In fact, if the DP doesn’t request duty advocate the custody sergeant will try to persuade them. It protects the police against allegations of improper detention, interview, pressure, which might render the interview inadmissible.
 

Firstly thank you for your detailed reply. Most illuminating and has answered my curiosity

Secondly, re your first paragraph. No I don’t know exactly, I don’t even know anywhere near exactly which is why I asked. I have never  been arrested and questioned myself, neither have I watched police procedurals ( why would you think I have).

Why be so rude in response to a simple question?
 

Anyway thanks again for your comprehensive reply.

[WTF]

2 hours ago, mollag said:

And Freemasons, dont forget the Freemasons.

 

i always wondered if there is a captive masons outfit out there ?

[Declan]

When I saw the image of the graffitti I thought the bottom left one said "gas" with a cloud over it. So, surrounded by swastikas it seemed sinister. Instead I now realise that is says "[redacted] is gay" and it just looks like kids. Its funny what a bit of casual homophobia can do. 

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, Declan said:

When I saw the image of the graffitti I thought the bottom left one said "gas" with a cloud over it. So, surrounded by swastikas it seemed sinister. Instead I now realise that is says "[redacted] is gay" and it just looks like kids. Its funny what a bit of casual homophobia can do. 

I’m sure it’s because I’m woke, but I’m not sure I could draw a distinction in the degree that “sinister” could apply, to any of gas, gay, roma, Jehovah’s witnesses, mentally defective.

[Declan]

8 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I’m sure it’s because I’m woke, but I’m not sure I could draw a distinction in the degree that “sinister” could apply, to any of gas, gay, roma, Jehovah’s witnesses, mentally defective.

That would be a fair point, if used by genuine Nazis.

But saying "Joe Bloggs is gay" as an insult is a thing only little kids say. Like drawing swasatikas.

Whereas "gas" looked like doubling down.

So yes, there is a distinction between naughty kids and Nazis.

 

[John Wright]

19 minutes ago, Declan said:

there is a distinction between naughty kids and Nazis.

There’s certainly a distinction in culpability, but the proximity of swastikas and any of the words I listed is equally sinister.

[Dirty Buggane]

Its a pity this much thought did not go into the Liverpool lounge, talk about over thinking.

[Jarndyce]

3 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said:

Its a pity this much thought did not go into the Liverpool lounge, talk about over thinking.

But the overthinking all seems to be happening on this thread…

[Dirty Buggane]

I see this as more like trying to justify their stance.