On US TV cop shows, when an arrest is made, you know the cop will say “You have the right to remain silent,” and so on, the Miranda rights. I don’t remember UK cops doing it, until now. On Ridley, a PBS cop show set in the UK, I saw a cop make an arrest, and she said, “You have the right, etc.” They didn’t show the whole recitation.
Do coppers in the UK do this, or was this a US writer making a mistake?
I have heard (on TV shows) many times something like “anything you say may be taken down and used in evidence” and also, what seems a little problematic to me, something like “if you fail to mention something during questioning, you may have difficulty using that in your defense later.” I’ve never quite understood how that’s supposed to work.
I believe the UK police have a similar but distinct warning.
Googling Right to silence in England and Wales - Wikipedia
“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.”
“But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.”
In other words, better spill your guts now or you’ll be sorry, something diametrically opposed to what your lawyer (or barrister) would tell you. 
Yes, that’s it. I can hear John Williams saying it now (and sorry I misspelled “defence”). Is there a lot of case law covering how this works? How specific does the questioning have to be? What about self-incrimination?
“Why didn’t you tell us that you are left-handed and wear size 12 shoes?” “You didn’t ask me.”
“Why didn’t you tell us you own an illegal firearm?” “Because it’s illegal, and it’s not relevant to the case.”
That’s why they say that it “may” harm your defense. On the other hand, if the police question you about why you were in the house where the murder happened, and you say nothing, but then in court claim that you entered the house because you heard screaming and thought someone needed help, the court is going to ask “Why didn’t you tell the police that?”.
As for who decides whether it’s relevant? I’d assume the jury.
I’ll be back to check on this later, but I have something else I have to do now.
English common law judges have long been sceptical of confessions, and have required that there be indicia of certainty that the person knew what they were doing when they confessed, and hadn’t done so because of “fear or favour” of what the police might do. That got codified around 1912 as the “Judges rules” - as a matter of evidence law, the judges concluded that if the police did not warn someone of their right to remain silent, the confession would likely be inadmissible. That practice in turn spread through the Commonwealth as a matter of evidence law.
Here in Canada, the police have to give a Charter warning, relating to right to counsel, and the common law warning about remaining silent.
The British rule was altered by Parliament about 20 years ago, to include the caution that if you don’t mention something and then do so at the first time at trial, it may weaken your defence.
Relevancy, in the sense of admissiblity, is determined by the judge, who decides if the jury will hear a particular piece of evidence. If the evidence is admitted, then it’s up to the jury to determine what weight to put on it.
Yes, you saw this warning on Law & Order UK. The general point is if you don’t give the cops an albi or some other exculpatory evidence, but then rely on it in court “I was with my gran watching the telly at the time” then the defence can mention that you failed to tell them this when you were first arrested/questioned - implication being why would you fail to mention this at the time, was it made up later… ?
I guess the jury can decide whether a normal person would have said that right away when arrested, or stay mum. Obviously, “I was boinkin’ me mate’s wife” the jury would probably understand why you would want to avoid mentioning that as long as you could. It’s just one more data point for the jury.
Alibi evidence has always been something that the accused has to give advance notice to the Crown about.
Back to the TV aspect of the OP’s question - I think you’ll see it more often than not in any police procedural (Unforgotten, The Bill, Line of Duty etc) but wouldn’t be surprised if its the first thing cut in an edited scene.
I assume this detail is notable because in the USA this cannot be mentioned in court that “oh, you never said this when you were arrested…” or any other details about what the defendant did not say?
It’s notable in the UK because it’s a change; the UK rule used to be that your failure to say X when arrested could not be used to challenge the veracity of X when you said it in court. But they changed the rule so that your failure to mention X when first questioned can be used to impugn your testimony if you say X in court.
No, it’s because alibi evidence was an exception to the rule. Defence had to give notice of the alibi prior to court; that’s now subsumed in the general caution.
Does that apply even if the defendant themselves is not on the stand to testify to his alibi? I.e. if the girfriend or grandmother gets up and says that?
As I understood (thanks to Law & Order, everyone’s go-to US crime reference) that in the USA the prosecution could bring up anything the defendant said - after being apprised of his rights - but could not mention instances where he took advantage of his right to remain silent, as they would be implying that it meant he was guilty - just as they can’t question why the defendant refuses to testify in court.
It’s a mistake when they do it on US cop shows, too.
Police don’t have to mirandize you when they arrest you. They only have to mirandize you when you are being asked questions while in custody. If police don’t want to ask you anything, or if you are not in custody (custody is not the same thing as merely being detained and not free to leave), Miranda doesn’t apply.
Same here. Suspects do not need to be cautioned until they are arrested. The old faithful “helping the police with their enquiries” applies first.
Canada is different. Section 10 of the Charter applies as soon as someone is detained or arrested. The police must give the reasons for the detention or arrest, and the person has the right to be informed of the right to counsel, and avail themselves of that right.
Thank you for your answers, folks.