The Impact of the Right Against Self-Incrimination on Criminal Cases
Although Edward’s confession of being a drug dealer to the police can indeed serve as a powerful evidence of his alleged guilt, as a criminal defendant, he has a right against self-incrimination. The case involves an involuntary confession from Edward, which was coerced by PC Lyons and Detective Inspector P D James cannot be used against Edward in court, even if it was factual. The right is related to the Miranda rights, one where law enforcement officers are expected to inform a suspect such as Edward prior to custodial interrogation. At times police officers can neglect to issue a Miranda warning when needed, and at times they may question the suspect in some overly coercive way even in the case they issue subject warnings.
The court can find Edward’s confession as being involuntary in the case the law enforcement officers prevented the suspect from having to use his free will. Edward also tried exercising his right to an attorney, but the police continued questioning him. In that case any ensuing confession would likely be looked at as being involuntary. Also, Edward’s shoulder was very sore and he was beginning to lose feeling in that arm and hand. The custody officer was aware of the injury but appeared to be ignoring Edward’s repeated requests to see a doctor. This makes the resulting confession as involuntary as well. The confession also resulted from torture-like tactics and deprivation of basic needs like medical treatment and making a phone call, lawfully making it involuntary. However, something Edward will also need to keep in mind is that situations where a defendant can be able to get a confession wiped out as involuntary is often narrow and extreme.
Detective Inspector P D James and the police officers who interviewed Edward can also be said to have used coercive police tactics. The actions used by the police officers to find a confession from Edward were involuntary. These include physically abusing him during questioning. Edward was also asked if he could make a phone call but his request was refused. As a result, this would be enough reason for the resultant confession to be thrown out of court. Also, false promises of lenient treatment on getting a confession such being told he would be given his solicitor is also considered as being unduly coercive. However, in proving his confession as involuntary, Edward will need to convince the judge that the used coercive tactics actually took place. It may be a challenge to convince the judge that the police officers promised leniency in the case where his only evidence is word of mouth.
With regards to the factors that can be considered by the court, it can consider the location, time, and level of detail of the subject police questioning. Edward’s interrogation can be considered as more coercive than some brief conversations in a police station, as it was done for 3 excruciating hours. The police officers also did not issue Miranda warnings and also did not heed to Edward’s efforts of exercising their Miranda rights, making his confession involuntary. If Edward had been the one who began the interaction instead, the resultant confession probably would be not been involuntary, unless the content and tone of the conversation dramatically changing. Also, no family member was with him even after requesting to phone his girlfriend over, making him have a stronger argument of his confession being involuntary. At times, courts also consider whether the defendant had been charged and arrested from previous crimes, meaning that they need to be familiar with the criminal justice system as well as being less likely to be coerced into making a confession.
Proving Edward’s Confession as Involuntary
His state of health during the interview is also an issue to consider, as an injured person cannot eliminate the confession on such a basis. Edward will need to indicate that his conditions prevented him from thinking in a clear manner in the situation. However, even in the case Edward had used drugs or alcohol was illegal, since he was being charged for drug dealing, such does not necessarily prevent the subject court from noting how the confession had essentially been involuntary. The Innocence Project also estimates that around 25% of suspects that have been convicted in but were later proved as being innocent had confessed to being guilty. An infamous example Edward can use in court includes the case of the jogger at Central Park, where five boys in their teenage years confessed to a brutal rape of the jogger and beating her, even the stories did not match as well as the DNA not linking them to subject attack. Thirteen years later, another man made a confession to this attack, and gathered DNA confirmed to the connection. Experts theorize the treatment of the boys during the interrogation and their youth, among some other factors, led to subject false confessions.
The actions of the police officers during the interrogation can also be considered as harassment or intimidation can be taken as being a criminal offense under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in Wales and England or even the Protection from Harassment Order 1997 (Northern Ireland), collectively called the PHA. A subject order of restrain can also be made on top of subject conviction, or a subject injunction can also be obtained. The PHA stands out as the main criminal legislation that deals with harassment as an offense. It may cover a wide array of behaviours and conduct, one that includes religious or racial harassment, and one that can also be used in prosecuting some types of behaviours considered anti-social where the subject amount of “harassment”, like how the police were shouting at Edward all through in the course of the interview. In Wales and England, it’s also an offense to cause a harassment, distress, or alarm under Public Order Act 1986. The offense comes with a fine of 1000 pounds or a penalty notice of 80 pounds. In the case where the subject offense has been committed with the intent of causing harassment, distress or alarm, the offenders may be given imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
The PHA handles harassment as a criminal offense. S1(1) in the subject Protection from Harassment Act of 1997 and also the Article 3(1) in the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 state: “An individual should not be pursuing subject course of conduct that (1) leads to another’s harassment; and (2) they know or are expected to know will lead harassment of another. Edward can also prove harassment so as to secure conviction of the police officers. In obtaining a conviction of criminal harassment, Edward’s prosecution will need to provide proof beyond any reasonable doubt the three elements: (1) he has pursued a subject course of the conduct, (the subject course of subject conduct led to his harassment and (3) as the defendant, he was familiar with and ought to be familiar with the subject course of conduct led to harassment. Harassment, in this case, can be presented as causing distress or alarm, and a subject course of the conduct can be inclusive of speech that has to involve a conduct on two occasions at least. The subject incidents may not need to be inclusive of the types of behaviours on both the occasions.
Coercive Tactics Used by Law Enforcement Officers
With regards to police violations of human rights, Human Rights Standards dictates that police officers should respect as well as protect the dignity of humanity, and also maintain and also uphold human rights for everyone. Law enforcement agencies are also expected to be accountable to the community in general. Effective mechanisms should also be make in ensuring inter discipline as well as also external control, and the rather efficient supervision of police officers. Police officers that have reason of believing violations have taken place, or are about to take place, will report the subject matter. The provisions will be ensured for the subject receipt and also processing complaints such as Edward’s against police officers made by the public, as well as the existence of the provisions may not be publicized. Edward will need to be familiar with the fact that local authorities have the responsibility taking the immediate action of law enforcement in protecting the ones that are intimidated or harassed. Such can be via an interim or an injunction (also known as ASBO) (one that can be acquired without notice to a defendant such as Edward in Northern Ireland and Scotland) or even a Community Protection Notice (in Wales and England) and one that may provide immediate raise confidence and relief in the subject ability of local agencies have of tackling such an antisocial behaviour.
Investigations of all violations will also not be competent, prompt, impartial and thorough. Investigations will also be looking towards identifying the victims: preserve and recover evidence; discover the course, location, manner and time of the violations; discover the witnesses; and identify as well as apprehend perpetrators. The crime scenes will also be carefully processed. The police officer shall also be held as being responsible for the abuses that they know, or were supposed to have known, in subject occurrences, and failed taking action. Police also get immunity from the prosecution or the discipline for having to refuse unlawful orders of their superior, as in the case of the detective and the law enforcement officers in the case. Obedience to superior orders from the police officers may also not be the defence for the violations that were committed by the police.
According to practice of the human rights, Edward need to be aware in the fact that supervisory and command officials are expected to issue standing orders, as well as providing regular training on human rights protection of all individuals meeting law enforcement officers, something the police officers in subject failed doing. It will be necessary to emphasize that all the officers both have a duty and right of defying unlawful orders such as the arrest that was done, and also report these unlawful orders to higher officials immediately. Command officials are also expected to remove any police officer who implicated violation of human rights from service, in the course of the result of appropriate investigation into the matter. The command officers are obligated to issue a policy statement, and the corresponding orders, ones that need full disclosure and cooperation of all officials with both internal and independent investigations, as well as strictly enforce, establish heavy sanctions for non-corporation and interference with the independent and internal investigations. The command officers also expected to regularly review the effectiveness of subject chain of command in the agency, as well as take a prompt action of strengthening the chain of where needed. Clear guidelines also have to be provided on report preparation, the preservation and collection of evidence, and the procedures needed in protecting the confidentiality of the witness. Continuous in-service and entry-level training for all the officials that emphasize the aspect of human rights of the police work. Screen processes also need to be provided for new police officers as well as periodic assessments, in determining the necessary character for duties of law enforcement. A mechanism that can be accessed should also be established for receipt for complaints made by community members, and fully investigating and redressing all the complaints and strictly regulating the storage, control, and issuing of ammunition and weapons. Edward should also note that the police officers in command are expected to conduct periodic, unannounced spot changes on the subject detention facilities, substations and police stations, as well as also inspecting ammunition and weapons that are carried by the police, as a way of ensuring they comply with the official regulations.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in Wales and England
Protection from Harassment Order 1997
JUSTIA. (2022, January ). Involuntary Confessions by Criminal Suspects. Retrieved from https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/miranda-rights/involuntary-confessions/
Liz W, L. (2022). Intimidation and harassment. Retrieved from https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/intimidation-and-harassment-a-A76076D35165/
UNITED NATIONS. (2004). Human Rights Standards and Practice for the Police. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/training5add3en.pdf
United Nations Centre for Human Rights. (1997). Human rights and law enforcement : a manual on human rights training for the police. New York : United Nations.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
