I was watching, “The Fall”, a police show that takes place in Belfast, UK. When a person was arrested, in addition to the “Anything you say can be held against you” they added words that (IIRC) implied that “If you refuse to answer any question, that fact may be declared at a trial” Did I interpret that correctly?
So what warnings are declared to defendants when they are arrested outside of the USA?
You do have the right to see a solicitor (and it’s free), but they don’t need to mention it upon arrest like they do in the US.
The typical advice is to indicate to the police that you’d like to talk to your solicitor before answering any questions. As a practical matter, what you say immediately upon arrest probably isn’t going to be used if it’s not being recorded (unless you’re stupid enough to sign something)
In South Africa our constitution sets out quite explicitly the rights you have upon being arrested. They include:
In practice the police use a standard form, though I believe they are also obliged to explain the rights verbally and of course in a language understood by the arrestee.
EDIT: the bits of the form that correspond directly to the “Miranda warning” are:
I believe (and I know someone will clarify) that in the U.K. it is required to say the warnings upon any arrest. It is not in the US. Only before questioning. I can’t tell you how many times someone was gloating about how they were going to get off because I didn’t read them their rights. I usually didn’t bother to explain. Their lawyer would take care of that later. As a patrol officer it was rarely needed. The vast majority of arrests were because of warrants or incidents I witnessed myself. If an attempt was going to be later made to have an interview with someone who was arrested giving Miranda upon arrest would be useless anyway since the court wants to see the warnings given contemporaneous with the interview.
As a detective Miranda comes up much more often. Courts in this state take a dim view of trying to skirt when you do and don’t need to give Miranda.
This isn’t really something new – I seem to recall one of the Police Inspectors in a Sherlock Holmes story making such a statement when arresting the criminal. Or maybe that was in one of the films.
Quite appropriate, really, given that this year is the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta.
Since the right applies upon arrest or detention, not arrest for questioning, it is broader than Miranda. However, once the warning is given, the right to counsel isn’t as broad as under US law; once the individual has consulted counsel, the police can interrogate in the absence of counsel.
There is also the common law warning, based on the English Judges’ Rules. For a confession to be admissible, the police must first give the warning about self-incrimination and the right to a lawyer.
“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.”
The bit about not mention ~ rely on in court, was added because it was considered necessary to make sure that suspects understood that a defence put forward in court would be less likely to be believed if that was the first time it was raised. Hopefully, from the police point of view, to encourage them to talk.
As anyone who watched Broadchurch will know, a defendant does not have to take the stand and be cross examined. In fact they could remain completely silent from arrest to conviction/acquittal.
Here’s the statutory provision (in an un-authoritative translation from the authoritative German version) of the Cocde of Criminal Procedure provision in Germany:
I hear the same crap all of the time.
“I was arrested for public intoxication but the officer never read me my rights!!!” said with a smug smile.
I ask, “Well, did the officer question you?”
“No.”
“Then, so freaking what?”
I ask them if the cop walked up to them, saw a smoking gun in their hand, and a dead body at their feet if they thought they got to go home if their rights were not read to them. They all somehow think that would be “different.” :dubious:
The UK wording, which was altered sometime in the 80s I believe, is, and was widely considered at the time, an erosion of the absolute right to silence. The form of the wording now is really a veiled threat. ‘Well, yes, you don’t have to say anything but if you don’t it’ll be the worse for you.’
It’s so infuriating to see the liberties Englishmen have fought for over the centuries (double jeopardy is another safeguard that’s gone) being meekly surrendered by their descendants who rather clamour to have them taken away rather than vociferously protesting their loss. Such rights now only survive in that last bastion of English liberty, the United States.
In Norway a suspect is not required to answer any questions, and has the right to be informed of the reason for the interview, but there doesn’t appear to be any standard information/warning.
