Police Interview - ROTI - In court

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

Hello

A police interview statement/ROTI presented to the CPS has left out various statements made by the defendant that could undermine the prosecution's case (in Crown Court).

During the trial, can the defence put the person who transcribed the ROTI on the stand and ask them to read aloud the statements that were omitted.


Any advice appreciated. Thank you.

[Roger Hayter]

At this stage there may not be much to be achieved by proving that the
CPS had restricted information to make a judgment on. The issue now is
proving the prosecution case inadequate. Might it not be more relevant
for the defendant to give evidence about the content of the statement?
But if this is not desirable whoever gives evidence about the contents
of the defendant's statement could be examined on these parts of it.
If the defendant's statement is not to be introduced at all then I don't
see the point. Whether the CPS should or shouldn't have brought the
case is no longer relevant. IANAL!
--

Roger Hayter

[Pelican]

On 14/06/2016 06:08, arizonapa...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello
>
> A police interview statement/ROTI presented to the CPS has left out various statements made by the defendant that could undermine the prosecution's case (in Crown Court).
>
> During the trial, can the defence put the person who transcribed the ROTI on the stand and ask them to read aloud the statements that were omitted.

Why do you need to call that person as a witness? The defence is free
to put before the court the original and complete interview statement
made by the defendant, if it is relevant. But the more important bit is
that the the CPS is apparently relying on an incomplete interview
statement, because the police have edited it. You might be better
served directing the attention of the CPS before trial to the original
and complete interview statement, and see what response is.

[Robin]

I think you (Pelican) are assuming the CPS already have a full
transcript of the interview. AIUI these days those are not provided
routinely to the CPS or defence and may have to be requested/ordered at
the trial preparation hearing. (I only know 'cos a barrister told me to
press for a copy of the tape after being charged 'cos they can be a
bugger to get later. I'm still not sure if that advice was in the
nature of a forecast of my future need.)

I think the OP needs to think more in terms of the defence either
agreeing with the CPS a revised summary of the interview or getting a
ROTI ordered by the court.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Chris R]

On Monday, 13 June 2016 21:57:20 UTC+1, arizonapa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > A police interview statement/ROTI presented to the CPS has left out
> > various statements made by the defendant that could undermine the
> > prosecution's case (in Crown Court).
> >

> The statement will to be introduced into evidence.
>
> >>>ROGER HAYTER: At this stage there may not be much to be achieved by

> >>>proving that the CPS had restricted information to make a judgment on.
>

> >>>PELICAN: Why do you need to call that person as a witness?
>
> I think this is perhaps subjective on our part? Perhaps there is no good
> reason other than to see this person held to account
>
Never ever embark on any kind of court process, least of all criminal
proceedings, with a view to achieving some ancillary purpose other than
winning the litigation - in this case holding someone (other than the
defendant) to account. You will always be disappointed and may undermine
your main case. A criminal trial is not a general inquiry into the
background. It is focussed solely on the whether the guilt of the accused
person has been proven, and anything else is irrelevant.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Graham Murray]

"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> writes:

> Never ever embark on any kind of court process, least of all criminal
> proceedings, with a view to achieving some ancillary purpose other
> than winning the litigation - in this case holding someone (other than
> the defendant) to account. You will always be disappointed and may
> undermine your main case. A criminal trial is not a general inquiry
> into the background. It is focussed solely on the whether the guilt of
> the accused person has been proven, and anything else is irrelevant.

But does presenting evidence which supports that someone else is
responsible not serve to increase the amount of doubt that accused is
guilty? Hopefully introducing sufficient doubt that the jury finds the
accused not guilty.

[Roger Hayter]

I think that what is being proposed is presenting evidence that a police
officer did an unrepresentative summary of the defendant's statement
when presenting it to the CPS. This is probably not even a crime, and
has no bearing directly on whether the defendant is guilty or not. Once
the defendant is being prosecuted, evidence as to whether he should have
been prosecuted is irrelevant to his case.[1] And it is more likely
than not to anagonise the jury who will may it as wasting their valuable
time.

[1] If the case cannot be thrown out for lack of evidence after the
prosecution case, and nothing in the defendant's statement is going to
be decisive here.


--

Roger Hayter

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 8:41:48 AM UTC+1, Chris R wrote:
> On Monday, 13 June 2016 21:57:20 UTC+1, arizonapa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > A police interview statement/ROTI presented to the CPS has left out
> > > various statements made by the defendant that could undermine the
> > > prosecution's case (in Crown Court).
> > >
> > The statement will to be introduced into evidence.
> >
> > >>>ROGER HAYTER: At this stage there may not be much to be achieved by
> > >>>proving that the CPS had restricted information to make a judgment on.
> >
> > >>>PELICAN: Why do you need to call that person as a witness?
> >
> > I think this is perhaps subjective on our part? Perhaps there is no good
> > reason other than to see this person held to account
> >
> Never ever embark on any kind of court process, least of all criminal
> proceedings, with a view to achieving some ancillary purpose other than
> winning the litigation - in this case holding someone (other than the
> defendant) to account. You will always be disappointed and may undermine
> your main case. A criminal trial is not a general inquiry into the
> background. It is focussed solely on the whether the guilt of the accused
> person has been proven, and anything else is irrelevant.
> --
> Chris R
>

I hear you loud and clear. Sage advice. Thank you.

[Pelican]

On 14/06/2016 15:28, dani.wi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 13 June 2016 21:57:20 UTC+1, arizonapa...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thank you very much indeed for your replies.

>
> The statement will to be introduced into evidence.
>
>>>> ROGER HAYTER: At this stage there may not be much to be achieved by proving that the CPS had restricted information to make a judgment on.
>
>>>> PELICAN: Why do you need to call that person as a witness?
>
> I think this is perhaps subjective on our part? Perhaps there is no good reason other than to see this person held to account
>
>

>>>> ROGER HAYTER: Might it not be more relevant for the defendant to give evidence about the content of the statement?
>
> I did think this might be the case.
>
>>>> PELICAN: The defence is free to put before the court the original and complete interview statement made by the defendant, if it is relevant.
>
> My understanding was that there has to be an agreed statement?
>
> Perhaps as per Roger Hayter's suggestion, the person giving evidence could be examined on those parts that were editied out.
>
>>>> PELICAN But the more important bit is

> that the the CPS is apparently relying on an incomplete interview
> statement, because the police have edited it. You might be better
> served directing the attention of the CPS before trial to the original
> and complete interview statement, and see what response is.
>

> Didn't think of that so will definitely follow up.
>
> I've read of a few cases though where the police and/or CPS appear to have overlooked the evidence and forced a case through court regardless. I think we all know the phrase "the case shouldn't have even gone to court." It is only a concern though and will heed your advice.

As a general rule, disregard what you have seen on tv and in the media
about the police or the CPS behaving badly, or treat it with a large
pinch of salt. Your best bet is to get the material you want out in the
open before the agencies involved, and the sooner the better so that
people don't dig their heels in.

As another general rule, as between dishonesty of some kind and a stuff
up, the latter is usually the case.

[Pelican]

On 14/06/2016 17:13, Robin wrote:
> On 13/06/2016 22:14, Pelican wrote:
>> On 14/06/2016 06:08, arizonapa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> A police interview statement/ROTI presented to the CPS has left out
>>> various statements made by the defendant that could undermine the
>>> prosecution's case (in Crown Court).
>>>
>>> During the trial, can the defence put the person who transcribed the
>>> ROTI on the stand and ask them to read aloud the statements that were
>>> omitted.
>>
>> Why do you need to call that person as a witness? The defence is free
>> to put before the court the original and complete interview statement
>> made by the defendant, if it is relevant. But the more important bit is
>> that the the CPS is apparently relying on an incomplete interview
>> statement, because the police have edited it. You might be better
>> served directing the attention of the CPS before trial to the original
>> and complete interview statement, and see what response is.
>
> I think you (Pelican) are assuming the CPS already have a full
> transcript of the interview.

No, I'm assuming they don't.

> AIUI these days those are not provided
> routinely to the CPS or defence and may have to be requested/ordered at
> the trial preparation hearing. (I only know 'cos a barrister told me to
> press for a copy of the tape after being charged 'cos they can be a
> bugger to get later.

That may well be so.

> I'm still not sure if that advice was in the
> nature of a forecast of my future need.)
>
> I think the OP needs to think more in terms of the defence either
> agreeing with the CPS a revised summary of the interview or getting a
> ROTI ordered by the court.

You may have misread what I said.

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

Please assume the information that has been edited out of the statement has a direct bearing on the charge and therefore a direct bearing on whether the defendant is guilty or not.

[Roger Hayter]

Does the original recording still exist and is it fully intact and is it
in the hands of the defence? A big problem of credibility exists if
these statements are not all true. It is, unfortunately, unlikely to be
helpful to try to correct that situation, unless an independent witness
was present when the statement was made.



--

Roger Hayter

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

The original recording still exists is fully intact and will be given to the defence.

Thank you.

[Robin]

I did indeed misread what you said about the CPS having the complete
statement. Apologies for that.

OTOH your concern about the CPS relying on an edited statement still
seems to me at odds with current practice[1] which is very much aimed at
using agreed summaries or edited transcripts where possible.

e.g. the CPS guidance includes (within a long piece):

"Whether a brief interview summary, a longer description or a full
transcript is required depends on the seriousness of the case. It also
depends on the role and importance of the interview in relation to the
facts to be proved, or inferences to be made. "
...
"If the prosecution wishes to rely on the defendant's interview in
evidence, the prosecution should seek to agree the summary of interview
with the defence. The Prosecution has a duty to ensure that any summary
of interview presented is accurate and fair. The Defence should have
received a copy of the audio or video recording, and can check the
record against the recording, if they cannot accept the summary by way
of admission. The record should be edited if inadmissible matters are
included within it and, in particular if the interview is lengthy, the
prosecution should seek to shorten it by editing or summary - 27C
Criminal Practice Directions Amendment No. 3 [2015] EWCA Crim 430."

[Roger Hayter]

<arizonapa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 3:17:58 PM UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > <arizonapa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

snip

> > >
> > > Please assume the information that has been edited out of the
> > > statement has a direct bearing on the charge and therefore a direct
> > > bearing on whether the defendant is guilty or not.
> >
> > Does the original recording still exist and is it fully intact and is it
> > in the hands of the defence? A big problem of credibility exists if
> > these statements are not all true. It is, unfortunately, unlikely to be
> > helpful to try to correct that situation, unless an independent witness
> > was present when the statement was made.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Roger Hayter
>
> The original recording still exists is fully intact and will be given to
> the defence.
>
> Thank you.

>From what people are saying, the defence need to agree an edited
transcript with the prosecution that contains all the finformation they
feel it would be advantageous to include (and of course all the info the
prosecution wants included) and, for the trial pupose anyway, forget
about what happened before. This edited version will then be the one
used at the trial.



--

Roger Hayter

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

I should add that by putting the transcriber on the stand, it would be more powerful for the jury to hear the transcriber reading out those parts that they left out as opposed to the defendant.

After reading your replies I can see that this could well backfire.

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

Orginal post deleted due to posting error. Reposting verbatim with no deletions or additions.

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

The question wasn't really about this. It was more about how the information could be presented in court and the question has been now answered.

There is a lot info of online about the use of statements including the CPS guidance Robin mentioned.

Thank you.

[GB]

On 14/06/2016 15:54, arizonapa...@gmail.com wrote:

> I should add that by putting the transcriber on the stand, it would
> be more powerful for the jury to hear the transcriber reading out
> those parts that they left out as opposed to the defendant.

There's a good chance that the transcriber turns out to be a numpty who
simply made a mistake. Giving that person a hard time in the witness box
is not helpful to your case.

You may hope the court will be on your side because you dramatically
expose an injustice, but the reality is that you probably end up looking
like a bully.

Just get the summary altered to include the parts you want included.

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

With the greatest of respect these are not mistakes. I don't feel I need to elaborate further on this.

I have already taken the advice given to me yesterday. Thank you.

[Roger Hayter]

Some of us, at least, fully realise that they are not likely to be
mistakes. The point, which you do now seem to accept, is that they can
be spun as mistakes by the people who made them, and their counsel!



--

Roger Hayter

[arizonapa...@gmail.com]

The CPS finally provided a full statement(after a lot of pressure).

The outcome of all this now is...

The solicitor has said what will probably happen is the edited statement will be used by the prosecution for the first half of the trial and then an agreed statement will be used by the defence for the second half of the trail.

The solicitor also said she thinks they may choose to do an agreed statement on the first day of the trial.