[News] Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

[hans kraay fan club]

Triggered?

Not in the slightest, thanks.

 

[Brovion]

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".

Answering "no comment" to every question when being interviewed by police whilst under caution can certainly cause harm to your defence. I was on a jury where the defendant, on a charge of ABH and assault, did exactly that when they were being interviewed following arrest (with a solicitor present). They then sang like a canary in the stand giving chapter and verse on their version of events, trying to pin everything on the victim of the assault, whilst painting themselves as the victim.

If you know in your own mind that you are innocent, or at least acted in a justifiably manner given the circumstances, then the wise thing to do is to give your version of events as honestly and as best you can when being interviewed. Keeping schtum with the "no comment" to everything just makes it look like you're (a) covering up and/or (b) trying to compile your own version of events first, without dropping yourself in it, so that it'll stand up in court under questioning and cross-examination.

If I'm ever arrested and I know I've done nothing wrong, or feel I have acted in self defence or with proportional force given the situation, I would absolutely give my version of events when being interviewed. Why wouldn't I ?

Yeah, same for me when I was on a Jury. If you're arrested rather than saying "No comment" you may as well say "Yes that's right" as that's exactly how it comes over - you're as guilty as sin and you daren't start lying because eventually you'll get found out.

And I haven't read the whole thread, but my twopennyworth: I have zero sympathy for the dead burglar, I hope the guy gets off and indeed I won't be opposed to some sort of civic award - but the police did exactly the right thing in nicking him. They couldn't just see a dead body and say "Never mind Grandad, you're an old man so it was obviously self defence. You go inside and have a nice cup of tea and we'll say no more about it." They had to get to the bottom of it.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Yeah, same for me when I was on a Jury. If you're arrested rather than saying "No comment" you may as well say "Yes that's right" as that's exactly how it comes over - you're as guilty as sin and you daren't start lying because eventually you'll get found out.

And I haven't read the whole thread, but my twopennyworth: I have zero sympathy for the dead burglar, I hope the guy gets off and indeed I won't be opposed to some sort of civic award - but the police did exactly the right thing in nicking him. They couldn't just see a dead body and say "Never mind Grandad, you're an old man so it was obviously self defence. You go inside and have a nice cup of tea and we'll say no more about it." They had to get to the bottom of it.

Lefty.

 

[Easy 10]

May harm your defense. I would not say no comment. Just state I am not answering questions under arrest. I am happy to talk prior to arrest. After arrest my defense team will be in charge. The police have been known to fit people up for murder.

I don't think you really understand how this works. They will STILL question you on the incident. Whether you say no comment or sit there in silence, the result is the same - you would be wilfully choosing not to cooperate. You can't choose to get interviewed "off the record" - the police must go through due process to establish the all facts of the case in a formal interview.

If you think you can refuse every question in a formal interview, thereby deliberately obstructing the investigation, because your legal team will "straighten it all out" for you in court, then you're a bit clueless tbh. They're not kidding - it MAY harm your case if you do not mention something you later rely on in court. In my experience from a jury box, it most certainly does.

 

[happypig]

May harm your defense. I would not say no comment. Just state I am not answering questions under arrest. I am happy to talk prior to arrest. After arrest my defense team will be in charge. The police have been known to fit people up for murder.

In a police station you will be shitting yourself and if your solicitor tells you to answer their questions in order to be released and go home you will. All this bullshit about not answering whilst under arrest is bravado.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I would be silent. My legal team will fight my case in court.

So you think this is going to court when he hasn't been charged?

Arrest is not what you define it as.
Read post 209.

 

[Easy 10]

Yeah, same for me when I was on a Jury. If you're arrested rather than saying "No comment" you may as well say "Yes that's right" as that's exactly how it comes over - you're as guilty as sin and you daren't start lying because eventually you'll get found out.

Exactly. If you've got nothing to hide, if you're confident you've done nothing wrong, then clamming up under interview is not the thing to do.

I saw the flipside with a guy up on a charge of affray. He was interviewed on the night of the incident, and gave chapter and verse of his version of events in that interview. As it happened he was trying to defend a mate, and his interview and testimony in court pretty much matched up the CCTV footage (which he had not seen prior to his interview or in court). He was fully justified in his own mind, and although he overstepped the mark somewhat, he didn't hide anything from the police in the interview, or later in court. Which stood him in good stead in the end.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

May harm your defense. I would not say no comment. Just state I am not answering questions under arrest. I am happy to talk prior to arrest. After arrest my defense team will be in charge. The police have been known to fit people up for murder.

You don't know the difference between arrest and charged. How do the police take fingerprints?
It may be the other burglar handled the knife, so the old chap has to have his finger prints taken so the forensics can work it out.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I find it interesting that in any debate like this, those who would probably be classified as "left-leaning" or "liberal" will enthusiastically hang on to the minutiae of the wording and principle of the current law, and quote chapter and verse as to why it was correct that this old chap should have been arrested. They will ignore that this seems to go against a common sense and compassionate view of what this man (and other burglary victims) have had to go through - this stance is taken by others. I am not sure that the same adherence to legal principles would be adopted as enthusiastically if the issue at hand didn't suit their political and politically-correct worldview. I will not give potential examples - I am sure we can all think of some.

You do not have a clue what my politics are because they are a complete mixture depending on the policy. I am neither left nor right wing.

Common sense means police have a set procedure to follow as per the coroner.

I have loads of sympathy for the victim as I have been burgled 3 times, and confronted the two burglars during the last attempt, which I have documented earlier in this thread. I was terrified.

I also worked for the CPS for 8 years before I retired so know a little about arrests, custody, charging and courts.
I say a little because there are some people contributing to this thread who know tons more than I. Police, ex magistrate and lawyers.
By all means be compassionate but don't be naive.

 

[btnbelle]

I don't think you really understand how this works. They will STILL question you on the incident. Whether you say no comment or sit there in silence, the result is the same - you would be wilfully choosing not to cooperate. You can't choose to get interviewed "off the record" - the police must go through due process to establish the all facts of the case in a formal interview.

If you think you can refuse every question in a formal interview, thereby deliberately obstructing the investigation, because your legal team will "straighten it all out" for you in court, then you're a bit clueless tbh. They're not kidding - it MAY harm your case if you do not mention something you later rely on in court. In my experience from a jury box, it most certainly does.

In a police station you will be shitting yourself and if your solicitor tells you to answer their questions in order to be released and go home you will. All this bullshit about not answering whilst under arrest is bravado.

In cases like this one, it is very obvious that a law abiding person has not dragged a known burglar off the street in the middle of the night with the sole purpose of committing murder for the fun of it. A jury would see sense because the facts and evidence point towards the words of the real victim and homeowner being true.

My underwear would remain clean. I would break my silence and ask for a rest break if required.

 

[btnbelle]

So you think this is going to court when he hasn't been charged?

Arrest is not what you define it as.
Read post 209.

You don't know the difference between arrest and charged. How do the police take fingerprints?
It may be the other burglar handled the knife, so the old chap has to have his finger prints taken so the forensics can work it out.[/QUO

If you have done nothing wrong then the evidence speaks volumes. I know arrest means questioning and charging means going before a jury. I would not be questioned as an innocent victim in this sort of incident. I would give a good account of the facts prior to arrest. After reading what some have posted, I may permit my lawyer to submit a statement on my behalf to the CPS with a clear explanation of the facts. I would not answer questions as the police are not to be trusted. After all people in these situations are the victim and the dead person is the criminal. Unusual situation to be in and I would not allow them to treat me like a criminal.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If you have done nothing wrong then the evidence speaks volumes. I know arrest means questioning and charging means going before a jury. I would not be questioned as an innocent victim in this sort of incident. I would give a good account of the facts prior to arrest. After reading what some have posted, I may permit my lawyer to submit a statement on my behalf to the CPS with a clear explanation of the facts. I would not answer questions as the police are not to be trusted. After all people in these situations are the victim and the dead person is the criminal. Unusual situation to be in and I would not allow them to treat me like a criminal.

Charging does not mean going before a jury.

There are three different types of crimes, for instance. Summary (magistrates) either way, where the offence can be sent to the Crown Court by the District Judge or the defendant can choose a trial by jury, or Indicatable only where the first hearing is in the Magistrates court just to confirm the defendant name and charge.

You can be charged and plead guilty, so you just appear to be sentenced.

You have not been charged (pardon the pun) for this information.

How would you give a good account prior to arrest? You are in a state of shock in your house, the police need to examine the details as quickly as possible, whether you need to see a doctor, allowing you to get legal advice on how you stand.
Do you really think under those circumstances you can give a good account?

 

[Easy 10]

In cases like this one, it is very obvious that a law abiding person has not dragged a known burglar off the street in the middle of the night with the sole purpose of committing murder for the fun of it. A jury would see sense because the facts and evidence point towards the words of the real victim and homeowner being true.

My underwear would remain clean. I would break my silence and ask for a rest break if required.

Well then you're playing a very dangerous game, just making assumptions about what is "very obvious" in a murder case. As someone else said, I think there's an element of bravado in your "I ain't telling you nuffin" stance when being interviewed. If you've got nothing to hide, and you're happy that its very obvious a jury will simply acquit you, then why would you refuse to answer in a police interview ? Because once its in court, and you're in the stand, the prosecution will pick your story to pieces from start to finish and you'd best have some straight answers (you know, the ones you could have given in the interview...)

 

[Thunder Bolt]

In cases like this one, it is very obvious that a law abiding person has not dragged a known burglar off the street in the middle of the night with the sole purpose of committing murder for the fun of it. A jury would see sense because the facts and evidence point towards the words of the real victim and homeowner being true.

My underwear would remain clean. I would break my silence and ask for a rest break if required.

Complete rubbish. I have been a victim of a burglary where I saw the burglars in my house. I was extremely lucky not to be attacked but I was still in a state of shock when the police arrived. I could hardly give a coherent story because I was shaking like a leaf, and that's without a dead body on the floor.
You are posting within the realms of fantasy now.

 

[btnbelle]

Charging does not mean going before a jury.

There are three different types of crimes, for instance. Summary (magistrates) either way, where the offence can be sent to the Crown Court by the District Judge or the defendant can choose a trial by jury, or Indicatable only where the first hearing is in the Magistrates court just to confirm the defendant name and charge.

You can be charged and plead guilty, so you just appear to be sentenced.

You have not been charged (pardon the pun) for this information.

How would you give a good account prior to arrest? You are in a state of shock in your house, the police need to examine the details as quickly as possible, whether you need to see a doctor, allowing you to get legal advice on how you stand.
Do you really think under those circumstances you can give a good account?

I would be simply saying the truth, I would not accept being interrogated by the police as the victim of a crime in my own home.

 

[btnbelle]

Complete rubbish. I have been a victim of a burglary where I saw the burglars in my house. I was extremely lucky not to be attacked but I was still in a state of shock when the police arrived. I could hardly give a coherent story because I was shaking like a leaf, and that's without a dead body on the floor.
You are posting within the realms of fantasy now.

I too have been in a situation without a dead body and I chased the person until I came to. I was awoken at night and you don't react the way you would when arriving home from a day out. I was not in control of my mind or I would not have chased him. My adrenaline response was to fight. Yes I was shaken but I was able to give a good account to the police.

 

[Dr Bandler]

You do not have a clue what my politics are because they are a complete mixture depending on the policy. I am neither left nor right wing.

Common sense means police have a set procedure to follow as per the coroner.

I have loads of sympathy for the victim as I have been burgled 3 times, and confronted the two burglars during the last attempt, which I have documented earlier in this thread. I was terrified.

I also worked for the CPS for 8 years before I retired so know a little about arrests, custody, charging and courts.
I say a little because there are some people contributing to this thread who know tons more than I. Police, ex magistrate and lawyers.
By all means be compassionate but don't be naive.

I do not mean to judge you, nor offend you. I do, however, think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

I worked with / for the police for two years, and know that many junior and senior officers are frustrated with both aspects of the law, and the operation of the CPS. The result is an illogical situation in which it is often not possible for them to gain convictions against known criminals, and also that they are sometimes duty-bound to arrest people like the chap in this case, when they know he is innocent. The point is that the system has been overthought and over-engineered (for whatever reasons) and ends up making no reasonable sense in many circumstances. Therefore, blindly clinging to a notion that current practices are sacrosanct is not helpful (we can also see this against the backdrop of the rising gang murders in London).

I also make the point that there are posters on NSC and elsewhere (not aimed at you) who will adopt a position on a topic based on the principle that current laws, practices and procedures MUST be followed, regardless of any other consideration, whereas on other topics they will conveniently ignore the same principle.

Surely, we should maintain active pressure so that the system we end up with is effective, makes sense, and above all protects innocent people. To just say "this is the process" will not move us forward to a better system or a safer society - which is surely what we all want.

 

[Weststander]

I would be simply saying the truth, I would not accept being interrogated by the police as the victim of a crime in my own home.

I lean towards some of your views, but I’m sure the Police would have gently questioned him, with plenty of breaks .... to establish the facts. The arrest just formalised the process, protecting him as much as anything, so that everything he said after that was noted verbatim and can be used in all legal procedures. In this day and age of human rights legislation, which protects aggravated burglars too, it’s vital for the legal ducks to be in a row.

Like the vast majority here, I have zero sympathy for the deceased and his equally cowardly mate.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I too have been in a situation without a dead body and I chased the person until I came to. I was awoken at night and you don't react the way you would when arriving home from a day out. I was not in control of my mind or I would not have chased him. My adrenaline response was to fight. Yes I was shaken but I was able to give a good account to the police.

But you didn't kill him, nor were you attacked, so it is different.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This may not be appropriate, but it is funny.

The homeowner came home to find a burglar in his house, stark naked in his bath.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-43670774