quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlene
If everyone did that then everyone would get away with it, i doubt it would be right like

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mattss Corsa

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlene
If everyone did that then everyone would get away with it, i doubt it would be right like

---

Worked for me

---

quote:

---

This must be an old document - the High court threw out this argument in, amongst other cases, the case of Mawdsley and Yorke v Chief Constable of Cheshire and DPP [2003]. (Yes the Yorke in this case is Dwight Yorke).



The whole citation can be found here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/1586.html



but if you don't fancy a long read the salient point is this (Quotation from the case):

---

quote:

---

Mr Laprell relied on C.10.1 of the Code of Practice in the edition current at the time of both prosecutions. The paragraph has since been revised, but not in such a manner to affect the issue. C.10.1 provides that –


"A person whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence must be cautioned before any questions about it (or further questions if it is his answers to previous questions which provide the ground for suspicion) are put to him regarding his involvement or suspected involvement in that offence if his answers or his silence(i.e. failure or refusal to answer a question or answer satisfactorily) may be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution. He therefore need not be cautioned if questions are put for other purposes, for example, solely to establish his identity or his ownership of any vehicle or to obtain information in accordance with any relevant statutory requirements (see paragraph 10.5C) or in furtherance of the proper and effective conduct of research, (for example to determine the need to search in the exercise of powers of stop and search or to seek co-operation when carrying out a search) or to seek verification of a written record in accordance with paragraph 11.13."

In this context there is a distinction to be drawn between the two cases. I was informed by counsel that Mawdesley was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It follows that Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent to him as result of his having been identified as the driver by the registered keeper. Mr Laprell therefore argued that in Mawdesley's case there were grounds to suspect him of having committed the offence before the Section 172 form was sent to him, and that in those circumstances the failure to administer a caution would have been fatal to an attempt to adduce the confession in evidence.


In contrast Mr Yorke was the registered owner of the vehicle; and in his case the purpose of sending the form to him was to establish the identity of the driver. Thus it could be argued that the obligation to administer a caution had not arisen.


But in any event I am satisfied that the requirement to provide information under section 172 falls within the exceptions to the need for a caution contained in the second part of C.10.1, which provides that a person need not be cautioned if questions are put "…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…". The section 172 forms were sent to the Appellants for that purpose. It follows that in my judgment C.10.1 of the Code does not impose an obligation to caution in such circumstances. The same applies to the current edition of the Code which came into effect on 1 April 2003.


Accordingly an objection to the admission of such evidence on the basis of failure to comply with the code of Practice, could not have succeeded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve
no point, read my above post

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve
no point, read my above post

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SVM 286

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve
no point, read my above post

---

Sorry Steve, thought you were in the 'for' camp, rather than the 'against'.

If you are referring to your last quote, I thought you were adding weight to the argument, not negating it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by SVM 286

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve
no point, read my above post

---

Sorry Steve, thought you were in the 'for' camp, rather than the 'against'.

If you are referring to your last quote, I thought you were adding weight to the argument, not negating it.

---

im not in either camp, i was quoting what a solicitor told me

however, I am camp

---