I was at the police station last week with a youth who had assaulted his mate and had been caught in the act by the police.
The police had spoken to victims dad, who was happy for the matter to be dealt with by way of local resolution. I was told this in disclosure and therefore queried why the lad was even being interviewed. The officer stated that they needed an admission from him first.
My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that this admission doesn't need to be during the course of an interview, or even following arrest. So long as the DP admits the offence to the police officer and, for example, signs his PNB to that effect, there is no need for the 14 year old to be kept at the police station for hours whilst statements are obtained etc.
Can this type of resolution be used without arrest?
I was at the police station last week with a youth who had assaulted his mate and had been caught in the act by the police.
The police had spoken to victims dad, who was happy for the matter to be dealt with by way of local resolution. I was told this in disclosure and therefore queried why the lad was even being interviewed. The officer stated that they needed an admission from him first.
My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that this admission doesn't need to be during the course of an interview, or even following arrest. So long as the DP admits the offence to the police officer and, for example, signs his PNB to that effect, there is no need for the 14 year old to be kept at the police station for hours whilst statements are obtained etc.
Can this type of resolution be used without arrest?
Thanks
We all know there are "admissions" and "admissions" , yes it can be used without arrest ............ i suspect that in the above circumstances the arrest preceeded the victim and his father being spoken to and agreeing to LR given that the suspect is a juvenile and needed an appropriate adult would an admission other than in interview once arrested be appropriate.
I do agree that provided he admitted the offence in interview and the disposal was LR any lenghty detention to obtain statements would be questionable.
Should the officer have disclosed the willingness of the victim for LR in the first place would be my question , surley the correct disclosure would have been " all disposal options will be considered"
Well I suspect the police officers did not have a clue what they were about. They should certainly not have disclosed the fact that a disposal by Local Resolution was availabl prior to any admission being made. (Although I have to say this is helpful when advising the client).
In Thompson, R (on the application of) v Metropolitan Police [1996] EWHC Admin 379 (18th December, 1996); [1997] 2 CAR that any admission on which the police rely should have been made before a decision to caution had been made, and not in order that a caution may be the only penalty.
Our force is just about to roll out a form of restorative justice involving the kind of "local resolutions" the original poster mentions.
In my understanding the admission does not need to be under interview conditions and that recording of an admission in the officers PNB is satisfactory. Indeed the necessity to attend a police station should be removed and the restorative approach can be decided upon and actioned by the officer on the street.
The training package for this system will be given in March and I will report back to the forum if it highlights any difference from my current understanding.
For the avoidance of any doubt, you can suspect what you like and I can suspect what I like!
Hussein v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942 Lord Devlin; "Suspicion in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking"
What have i done now ??? , I thought my use of 'suspect' was in the correct context as the original question didn't state that the client was arrested before the victim agreed to LR but given the circumstances i suspected this was the most liklet sequence of events. .
I had an absolutely disgraceful case of restorative justice recently when my client was accused (and admitted to me that he had) beat up a 13 year old child - there had been an argument. My client got out of his car and beat the crap out of the AP. Long story about 'do not ever lie to the police- you have two choices - admit it or say nothing' and 'no you cannot say that if I am there'. In the event the oic contacted me to say that she would be seeking restorative justice. My jaw dropped. (Well, I could tell you what I really think but it would be not suitable for a public website.) When the family and the child objected, my client was given a caution! How good is that?
Ashy, I personally think that this was entirely acceptable and correct. Your client was arrested for an offence witnessed by police. On speaking to the IP or his apprioriate they have expressed a wish for the matter to be dealt with outside the CJS process.
An interview would be necessary IMO because there will always be a possibility that your client may not complete the resolution requested (ie letter of apology). If they didnt complete it then we should be in a position to prosecute or look at other methods of disposal.
It would show poor foresight and investigative skill to not obtain sufficient evidence not negate a NG plea in the event a resolution wasnt completed. If we dont interview or obtain statements and they dont complete the resolution what evidence do we have...we cant now really re interview can we...he`s been arrested for that offence already and there is hardly "new" evidence to allow us to re-arrest. neither can we bail from the police station to allow people to complete the resolution. The only option is to release from custody unconditionally. Hence prior to this we need to have obtained all required admissable evidence so int he even on non completion we can report for summons.
Local resolutions should really be a non custody option but there will always be a possibility that after an arrest it becomes apparent one is applicable. In this case and the event of a solicitor needing disclosure i would indeed put across the point that the IP wishes a local resolution. Especially were the evidence of the offence is strong - such as a police officer witnessing the offence! It will surely allow a solicitor to correctly adivse a client were there is a possibility of such a disposal.
Kelly, Im confused, to be given a caution your client had to accept his role in the offence...why would you advise he accept a caution if the circs were as above?
We can only offer a caution, we cant just administer one. The basic premis being that if they dont accept the caution we are in a position to charge.
EDIT: Sorry Kelly i got the wrong end of the stick i see what you mean now.Yes that does appear to be totally inappropriate. Hell even a caution seems wrong..."Not so serious as to charge???"
In an ideal world local resolutions would mean no custody, no interview and no paperwork, but in an ideal world the suspect would always complete the resolution.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
![]](/skins/CXblue/forum_images/top-left.gif)
![]](/skins/CXblue/forum_images/top-right.gif)
![]](/skins/CXblue/forum_images/left-side-table-bg.gif)
![]](/skins/CXblue/forum_images/right-side-table-bg.gif)
![]](/skins/CXblue/forum_images/bottom-left.gif)
![]](/skins/CXblue/forum_images/hide_off.gif)
![]](/skins/CXblue/forum_images/hide_min.gif)
![]](/skins/CXblue/forum_images/hide_max.gif)
Topic: Local Resolution
