Differences between Law & Order: UK and US versions

[Hail_Ants]

As I’ve stated here countless times everything I’ve learned about British society (compared to America) has been from British TV shows (Python, Young Ones, Inbetweeners etc.) As a fan of most of the US versions of* L&O* my TiVo recorded an episode of* Law & Order:UK* off BBC America as a suggestion (I had no idea a Brit version of the show even existed!) Really neat how they’ve perfectly applied the format & style of the show to a British setting.

After watching a dozen or so episodes I have a few simple questions:
[list=A]
[li]I know that Uniformed British police don’t carry guns, but are the detectives also unarmed? (forgive a gun-loving Yank for having difficulty wrapping my head around this :D)[/li][li]In British courts it seems that the defendants are always in a separate ‘cage’ thing with its own stairway up from below? Does this only apply to violent offenders, or those that can’t make bail? Because in America it’s very rare, even with murderers, for a defendant to be restrained in court. We do always have several armed bailiffs ready to pounce on them but only occasionally (when they’re known trouble-makers) will they remain shackled. Even then they still always sit right at the desk with their lawyer.[/li][li]Are Crown Prosecutors & Defense barristers generally given more leeway in terms of badgering witnesses? They seem to do this on the show much more often & easily then their American counterparts can.[/li][li]Do witnesses have to always remain standing while testifying? If so, why? In America they’re *always *seated.[/li][li]Before testifying are witnesses ‘sworn in’ on a bible (or some equivalent) to officiate lying as perjury? I’ve yet to see that on this show (though they often skip showing this on the US versions too).[/li][li]Is there no equivalent to The Fifth Amendment in Britain? Is the Crown Prosecutor *always *allowed to directly question the defendant in open court no matter what? Cause in America *not *getting to do this is a **very **big deal.[/li][li]In an episode where there was a deadlocked jury a court officer specifically asked if there was a majority of at least 10 jurors. I assume it still has to be unanimous, but are they allowed to ask this so that, if true, the judge can decide whether to *order *them to deliberate further? Again in the US I’ve never heard of this (but it may just be an esoteric rule that varies state to state).[/li][/list]
Any & all responses welcome (though an actual British lawyer would be nice!)

[AK84]

[quote=“Hail_Ants, post:1, topic:637376”]

As I’ve stated here countless times everything I’ve learned about British society (compared to America) has been from British TV shows (Python, Young Ones, Inbetweeners etc.) As a fan of most of the US versions of* L&O* my TiVo recorded an episode of* Law & Order:UK* off BBC America as a suggestion (I had no idea a Brit version of the show even existed!) Really neat how they’ve perfectly applied the format & style of the show to a British setting.

After watching a dozen or so episodes I have a few simple questions:

I know that Uniformed British police don’t carry guns, but are the detectives also unarmed? (forgive a gun-loving Yank for having difficulty wrapping my head around this :D)

British Police are armed. However, armed units are a specialised part of the police. Your everyday policeman or woman is not armed during duties, but can get armed back up if needed. (Irish police forces were and are armed)

In British courts it seems that the defendants are always in a separate ‘cage’ thing with its own stairway up from below? Does this only apply to violent offenders, or those that can’t make bail? Because in America it’s very rare, even with murderers, for a defendant to be restrained in court. We do always have several armed bailiffs ready to pounce on them but only occasionally (when they’re known trouble-makers) will they remain shackled. Even then they still always sit right at the desk with their lawyer.

Firstly, Law and Order UK is not about “British” Courts. Its about the Courts of England and Wales. The “cage” is called a “dock”. Most Crown Courts that I have seen have them. Crown Courts being where the more serious cases are tried. Many Magistrates Courts have them, but some do not. I recall Court 3 at City of London Magistrates Court does not, being a converted conference room.

Are Crown Prosecutors & Defense barristers generally given more leeway in terms of badgering witnesses? They seem to do this on the show much more often & easily then their American counterparts can.

My own experience is no and in fact I have seen American lawyers get away with far more than would be the norm in English or Commonwealth courts. You badger the witness, you get one warning from the judge and do it again and you are told to sit down.

Do witnesses have to always remain standing while testifying? If so, why? In America they’re *always *seated.

Usually yes, although arrangements can be made if necessary. Most English Court rooms are very cramped.

Before testifying are witnesses ‘sworn in’ on a bible (or some equivalent) to officiate lying as perjury? I’ve yet to see that on this show (though they often skip showing this on the US versions too).

Under the Oaths Act, 1978 you are sworn on the Bible if a Christian or Jew. If not, you may be sworn under any lawful manner or in anycase if whatever your religious persuasion take a solemn affirmation

Is there no equivalent to The Fifth Amendment in Britain? Is the Crown Prosecutor *always *allowed to directly question the defendant in open court no matter what? Cause in America *not *getting to do this is a **very **big deal.

The Fifth Amendment codifies long standing English common law. An accused (or anyone for that matter) does not have to answer questions which implicate him. An accused does not have to take the stand in his own defence, if he decides to do sothen he can be cross examined like anyone else. Controversially, due to Section 34-39 of the CJPOA 1994, a Court can draw inferences from an accused failure to mention something he later relies on in court.

In an episode where there was a deadlocked jury a court officer specifically asked if there was a majority of at least 10 jurors. I assume it still has to be unanimous, but are they allowed to ask this so that, if true, the judge can decide whether to *order *them to deliberate further? Again in the US I’ve never heard of this (but it may just be an esoteric rule that varies state to state).

Generally it has to be unanimous. If its not, then the Jury tells the Judge and they are told to retry. If they still cannot get a unanimous decision, they return and advise the Judge. If he then gives permission only then can issue a verdict on which at least 10 are agreed (or if only 10 jurors, 9)

Any & all responses welcome (though an actual British lawyer would be nice!)

Well I am not British. But I am a Barrister. And was called to the Bar of England and Wales.

[Springtime_for_Spacers]

@Hail_Ants

As I’ve stated here countless times everything I’ve learned about British society (compared to America) has been from British TV shows (Python, Young Ones, Inbetweeners etc.) As a fan of most of the US versions of* L&O* my TiVo recorded an episode of* Law & Order:UK* off BBC America as a suggestion (I had no idea a Brit version of the show even existed!) Really neat how they’ve perfectly applied the format & style of the show to a British setting.

After watching a dozen or so episodes I have a few simple questions:
[list=A]
[li]I know that Uniformed British police don’t carry guns, but are the detectives also unarmed? (forgive a gun-loving Yank for having difficulty wrapping my head around this :D)[/li][li]In British courts it seems that the defendants are always in a separate ‘cage’ thing with its own stairway up from below? Does this only apply to violent offenders, or those that can’t make bail? Because in America it’s very rare, even with murderers, for a defendant to be restrained in court. We do always have several armed bailiffs ready to pounce on them but only occasionally (when they’re known trouble-makers) will they remain shackled. Even then they still always sit right at the desk with their lawyer.[/li][li]Are Crown Prosecutors & Defense barristers generally given more leeway in terms of badgering witnesses? They seem to do this on the show much more often & easily then their American counterparts can.[/li][li]Do witnesses have to always remain standing while testifying? If so, why? In America they’re *always *seated.[/li][li]Before testifying are witnesses ‘sworn in’ on a bible (or some equivalent) to officiate lying as perjury? I’ve yet to see that on this show (though they often skip showing this on the US versions too).[/li][li]Is there no equivalent to The Fifth Amendment in Britain? Is the Crown Prosecutor *always *allowed to directly question the defendant in open court no matter what? Cause in America *not *getting to do this is a **very **big deal.[/li][li]In an episode where there was a deadlocked jury a court officer specifically asked if there was a majority of at least 10 jurors. I assume it still has to be unanimous, but are they allowed to ask this so that, if true, the judge can decide whether to *order *them to deliberate further? Again in the US I’ve never heard of this (but it may just be an esoteric rule that varies state to state).[/li][/list]
Any & all responses welcome (though an actual British lawyer would be nice!)

Not a lawyer but I’ve been a juror., I’ll do my best with some of these.

A. The distinction between armed and unarmed police in Britain is not a matter of rank. There are specific armed response units who can be called on, no other police are armed.

B. Prisoners are tried in the “dock”. In the courts I’ve been in this could be accessed from the floor of the court and had no bars. In cases where there is danger of violence or escape attempts from the defendant they will indeed be in a barred dock accessible only from within the secure cell block of the court. There would often be guards present in the dock also. I don’t think British prisoners are ever legshackled I think handcuffing is rare.

D. I think defendants stand in the dock is to show respect to the court (and the judge/magistrate) anytime the court is being addressed people stand, unless they have a dispensation.
E. People either swear on an appropriate religious book or affirm on their own honour to tell the truth. Jurors also swear to do their job properly. Incidentally barristers don’t get to challenge jurors and throw out the ones they don’t like. They are picked randomly from a pool.

F. No fifth amendment but you don’t have to answer. There used to be an actual “Right to Silence” meaning that no conclusions about guilt could be drawn from silence but now the prosecution can imply that the defendant is keeping quiet to cover up their crime.

G. If jurors can’t all agree after a period of deliberation (not sure how long) then a majority verdict can be accepted. I think it has to be no less than 10 to 2.

[Hail_Ants]

@AK84

The Fifth Amendment codifies long standing English common law. An accused (or anyone for that matter) does not have to answer questions which implicate him. An accused does not have to take the stand in his own defence, if he decides to do sothen he can be cross examined like anyone else. Controversially, due to Section 34-39 of the CJPOA 1994, a Court can draw inferences from an accused failure to mention something he later relies on in court.

@Springtime_for_Spacers

F. No fifth amendment but you don’t have to answer. There used to be an actual “Right to Silence” meaning that no conclusions about guilt could be drawn from silence but now the prosecution can imply that the defendant is keeping quiet to cover up their crime.

Yeah, I forgot to ask about the British version of what here is called ‘The Miranda Rights’, where upon arrest police have to tell you (roughly): “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you, you have the right to an attorney etc.” On the British L&O what their police say sounds like what your talking about, something like “if you remain silent it can be later inferred in court as you hiding something”, in other words guilt!

@Springtime_for_Spacers

G. If jurors can’t all agree after a period of deliberation (not sure how long) then a majority verdict can be accepted. I think it has to be no less than 10 to 2.

I like that idea. I wish we had it here in the US. Would prevent a lot of juries being deadlocked only because of one idiot!

So in regards to being armed, do the two main plain-clothes detectives featured on the show not ever carry handguns?

[Baron_Greenback]

@Hail_Ants

On the British L&O what their police say sounds like what your talking about, something like “if you remain silent it can be later inferred in court as you hiding something”, in other words guilt!

The wording is “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. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

So in regards to being armed, do the two main plain-clothes detectives featured on the show not ever carry handguns?

In real life a regular CID officer in England, Scotland or Wales would never carry a firearm. Northern Ireland is a different story - firearms are routinely issued at all levels of policing.

There are specialist firearm units within each Constabulary though, and specialist things like the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are always tooled up. Special Branch officers may well be a bit more armed than more mainstream police.

[Uther_Penguin]

@Baron_Greenback

There are specialist firearm units within each Constabulary though, and specialist things like the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are always tooled up.

They are armed with nuclear weapons, I presume?

[Springtime_for_Spacers]

@Hail_Ants

Yeah, I forgot to ask about the British version of what here is called ‘The Miranda Rights’, where upon arrest police have to tell you (roughly): “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you, you have the right to an attorney etc.” On the British L&O what their police say sounds like what your talking about, something like “if you remain silent it can be later inferred in court as you hiding something”, in other words guilt!

The best advice given to anyone who is being questioned is either to answer freely or to say nothing at all – not even to the most innocuous of questions. If for example your answers put you at the scene of a crime and in position to have observed what happened and you then refuse to answer questions about what actually happened then an inference may be drawn about guilt from that. However if you are silent the prosecution really has very little to go on. Not only the guilty benefit. It may very well be that an innocent person, who is aware that they might say something under hostile police questioning that could be spun to imply guilt, is better waiting for trial when their side of the story will be initially presented through defence questions.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I found one of the biggest differences between the US and UK shows was the UK cops’ first thought was to check the closed-circuit cameras to find a recording of the crime.

[friedo]

@Bryan_Ekers

I found one of the biggest differences between the US and UK shows was the UK cops’ first thought was to check the closed-circuit cameras to find a recording of the crime.

The Brits do love their surveillance cameras. Although I’m sure they have some cutesy limey name for them, like “cammiwammigams” or something. “Say, Nigel, did you check the cammiwammigams at the Tesco that was robbed?”

Have you also noticed how all the L&O: UK scripts are just recycled versions of early season episodes of the original L&O? But they change the crucial details, so (for example) a Mexican immigrant whose testimony is thrown out after it is found that a juror had done her own translation is replaced by a French African immigrant instead.

[Springtime_for_Spacers]

@friedo

The Brits do love their surveillance cameras. Although I’m sure they have some cutesy limey name for them, like “cammiwammigams” or something. “Say, Nigel, did you check the cammiwammigams at the Tesco that was robbed?”

We call them CCTV. Closed circuit television.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Sure, when it’s tea-time at the palace you’re all formal and shit, but the rest of the time it’s cockney rhyming slang like “hosed herbutt shine-o-mission.”