1/6
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
Taylor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police (2004)
-taylor 10 year old boy throwing stones in anti-vivisection protest
- he was arrested for ‘violent disorder’
- it was argued in court that it may not have been understandable however COA said it was/
R v Samuel
D 24 year old man’s mother had been informed of his arrest but he was being denied solicitor
evidence found in interview where solicitor wasnt present wasnt inadmissible because any reason for delaying solicitor was undermined by informing mother
R v Halliwell
D was arrested on suspicion for abducting a woman
SIO interviewed D in outdoor location before taking to PS and wasnt cautioned
D admitted to murdering another woman 7-8 years earlier
during interview, D asked multiple times to go to PS and speak to solicitor
then he was taken to PS, granted solicitor, cautioned before interview where he replied ‘no comment’ to every qs.
at pre trial hearing it was decided that all information gained away from PS was inadmissible, so was confession of other murder and location of body
Osman v DPP (1999)
officers did not give their names or stations so search was unlawful and so Mr. Osman wasnt guilty of assaulting the police officer
Michaels v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court (2009)
Michael was hiding something from the police in his mouth, he was told to open his mouth and not swallow. He did swallow an item, he was charged with obstructing the police.
Conviction was later quashed since police officers didnt give name or police station.
R v Beckles
was ruled that juries should be informed that no adverse inference should be drawn when D relies on solicitors advise to stay silent
R v Aspinall (1999)
COA ruled that D with schizophrenia should have appropriate adult present during police qs, even when D appears to understand qs