# The equivalent of Miranda warnings outside of USA **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 2, 2015, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661 "2015-04-02T22:43:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bizerta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@bizerta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizerta)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/1 "2015-04-02T22:43:32Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/2 "2015-04-02T22:56:49Z")
In the UK, the [caution which you are given is](http://www.urban75.org/legal/rights.html#caution): > [@](#): > > 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 wording of this caution is specified in the [1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994) 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) ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/3 "2015-04-02T23:13:56Z")
In South Africa our constitution [sets out quite explicitly](http://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights#35) the rights you have upon being arrested. They include: > [@](#): > > the right > [ul] > [li]to remain silent;[/li][li]to be informed promptly of the right to remain silent; and of the consequences of not remaining silent;[/li][li]to be informed promptly of the reason for being detained;[/li][li]to choose, and to consult with, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;[/li][li]to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly[/li][/ul] In practice the police use [a standard form](http://i.imgur.com/VQgbef0.jpg), 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: > [@](#): > > You have the right to remain silent and anything you say may be recorded and may be used as evidence against you. You are not compelled to make a confession or admission which could be used in evidence against you. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/4 "2015-04-02T23:36:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/5 "2015-04-03T00:00:50Z")
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_. ---
**Author:** ![jezzaOZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9a28c/32.png) [@jezzaOZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jezzaOZ)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/6 "2015-04-03T00:11:38Z")
Australia has the standard warning about remaining silent but there is no clause like the UK one. It’s actually pretty rare for a suspect to keep quiet. They usually agree to be interviewed on video - more fool them. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/7 "2015-04-03T02:43:35Z")
> [@buddy431](#): > > In the UK, the [caution which you are given is](http://www.urban75.org/legal/rights.html#caution): > > The wording of this caution is specified in the [1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994) > > 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) I first heard this when I discovered there was also a\* Law & Order: UK \*series (BBC America shows it here). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/8 "2015-04-03T10:29:42Z")
In Canada, there are two warnings, one required by the Constitution, and one by the common law. The first warning, required by the Constitution, is mandated by [s. 10 of the Charter of Rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Ten_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms): > [@](#): > > 1. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention > > a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; > > b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges'_Rules). For a confession to be admissible, the police must first give the warning about self-incrimination and the right to a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/9 "2015-04-03T11:02:28Z")
_“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. > [@](#): > > ‘You don’t have to answer the questions, you can remain entirely silent if you wish, or reply ”no comment”. This is because you are entitled to have the case proven against you, you do not have to convict yourself by your own words. But, if you have a defence (and I will advise you if you do), you should consider putting forward that defence now. If you do not, and your case goes to Court, and the first time you mention your defence is in Court, then the magistrate is entitled to think, or the judge is entitled to tell the jury, why is that? Wouldn’t an innocent person want to tell the police at the first opportunity that they were innocent? And they might think that you’ve made up that defence in the meantime, and that what you’re saying is not true. You are perhaps less likely to be believed if the first time you mention your defence is in Court.’ [http://thejusticegap.com/2011/12/extreme-caution/](http://thejusticegap.com/2011/12/extreme-caution/) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/10 "2015-04-03T11:18:15Z")
Here’s the statutory provision (in an un-authoritative translation from the authoritative German version) of the Cocde of Criminal Procedure provision in Germany: > [@](#): > > Section 114b > [Instruction of Arrested Accused; Rights] > > (1) The arrested accused shall be instructed as to his rights without delay and in writing in a language he understands. If written instruction is clearly insufficient, oral instruction shall also be given. The same procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis if it is not possible to give instruction in writing; written instruction shall, however, be given subsequently insofar as this can reasonably be done. The accused shall confirm in writing that he was given instruction; if he refuses, this shall be documented. > > (2) In the instruction pursuant to subsection (1) the accused shall be advised that he > > 1. shall, without delay, at the latest on the day after his apprehension, be brought before the court that is to examine him and decide on his further detention; > > 2. has the right to reply to the accusation or to remain silent; > > 3. may request that evidence be taken in his defence; > > 4. may at any time, also before his examination, consult with defence counsel of his choice; > > 4a. may, in the cases referred to in Section 140 subsections (1) and (2), request the appointment of defence counsel in accordance with Section 141 subsections (1) and (3); > > 1. has the right to demand an examination by a female or male physician of his choice; > > 2. may notify a relative or a person trusted by him, provided the purpose of the investigation is not endangered thereby. > > 3. may, in accordance with Section 147 subsection (7), apply to be given information and copies from the files, insofar as he has no defence counsel; and > > 4. may, if remand detention is continued after he is brought before the competent judge, > > a) lodge a complaint against the warrant of arrest or apply for a review of detention (Section 117 subsections (1) and (2)) and an oral hearing (Section 118 subsections (1) and (2)), > > b) in the event of inadmissibility of the complaint, make an application for a court decision pursuant to Section 119 subsection (5), and > > c) make an application for a court decision pursuant to §119a subsection (1) against official decisions and measures in the execution of remand detention. > > The accused is to be advised of defence counsel’s right to inspect the files pursuant to Section 147. An accused who does not have a sufficient command of the German language or who is hearing impaired or speech impaired shall be advised in a language he understands that he may, in accordance with section 187 subsections (1) to (3) of the Courts Constitution Act, demand that an interpreter or a translator be called in for the entire criminal proceedings free of charge. A foreign national shall be advised that he may demand notification of the consular representation of his native country and have messages communicated to the same. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/11 "2015-04-03T12:11:08Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > 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. 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: ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/12 "2015-04-03T12:30:53Z")
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. How I envy you your Constitution! ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/13 "2015-04-03T13:03:12Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > 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_. Around 1888, the declaration was: _“Oi, mate: you’re nicked !”._ ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/14 "2015-04-03T13:13:12Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > 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. > > How I envy you your Constitution! Are you joking? We barely even have a 4th amendment anymore. The War on Drugs killed the 4th amendment, and the War on Terror desecrated the corpse. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/15 "2015-04-03T13:20:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/16 "2015-04-03T14:50:20Z")
> [@Leonid Meteor Shower this weekend](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leonid-meteor-shower-this-weekend/93546/12): > > Such rights now only survive in that last bastion of English liberty, the United States. I guess you didn’t read posts 3, 6 and 8, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/17 "2015-04-03T15:23:21Z")
I think in North Korea, they say “You can scream if you want to. We don’t mind. We have ear plugs.” ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-equivalent-of-miranda-warnings-outside-of-usa/716661/18 "2015-04-03T16:40:29Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > Are you joking? We barely even have a 4th amendment anymore. The War on Drugs killed the 4th amendment, and the War on Terror desecrated the corpse. You obviously have never sat through a suppression hearing.