Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 86 (Apr)
Neutral Citation: [2006] EWCA Crim 793
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Richards LJ, Collins J and Judge Goddard

Representation Ian Glen QC and Valeria Swift (instructed by Gabb and Company Solicitors) for the defendant.
  Paul Lewis QC (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 6 April 2006

Catchwords

Criminal evidence - Admissions and confessions - Answers and statements to police - Caution - Defendant questioned as volunteer - No full caution being given - Whether obligation to caution - Whether reasonable grounds for suspecting defendant - Distinction between suspect and non-suspect - Relevance of search warrant in relation to non-suspect - Whether judge erring in admitting evidence of pre-arrest questioning - , Code of Practice for Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers, C10.1 to 10.5.

The Case

A TIE policy (whereby non-suspects would be questioned with a view to 'trace, interview and eliminate') did not cut across or undermine the essential distinction between suspects and non-suspects for the purposes of the Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers, but rather applied to persons who were not, at the stage of questioning of them, regarded as suspects. There could be no objection in principle to taking, for operational purposes, a number of categorisations for persons that police officers wished to question and the adoption of those categories did not affect the requirement under the Code to caution suspects or the absence of a requirement to caution non-suspects. The crucial question in the instant case was whether there existed grounds to suspect the defendant of the murder at the time when he was questioned before arrest, in relation to which the judge had been entitled to find that there had not.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.