Whilst I do feel for this chaps situation, why are you placing so much emphasis on him not getting legal advice?
By the sounds of it he is intelligent enough to realise what a caution is.
To administer a police caution, he would have admitted using physical force on his partner in a taped interview. The defences (self defence, human life) would be covered. After this an Inspector would explain what a police caution is and what it means (it is non-disclosable to most employers, lasts for five years etc). He would then have to sign the form, admitting guilt and get a copy for himself.
If the point of the post is to disredit the whole police caution proceedure then may I remind you that he can appeal against his caution, but stand the risk of having his case heard at court. With a taped admission this may not be in his best interets.
You can also apply to get a copy of his taped interview.
Or maybe your friend is not telling you the whole truth?
PS his surname isnt Freeman by any chance is it? 
Whilst I do not wish any offence PC Midlands, I think the point that is being made here is to always be on your guard with the police.
Bystander's advice, which basically comes down to "Always take legal advice" is bang on in my view.
I do not trust the police, nor do I trust my own knowledge of the law to the extent that I would gamble my future on it. I wouldn't give you any trouble, I'd be perfectly polite, but would not be answering any questions or discussing the allegation in any way until I'd spoken with my solicitor - and if I really took a dislike to you, my mum!
Martin.
PC Midlands, people, not matter how intelligent, do foolish things when they feel under pressure -- indeed (difficult though this is to believe, I know) they may sometimes even lie to the police. It seems not impossible that such lies might include someone admitting to something he hasn't done in order just -- as he sees it -- to be able to leave the police station and have the whole matter over and done with.
For the reasons Bystander gives, it's by no means the end of the story. And the advice that the caution's non-disclosable is a tad misleading -- I've been astonished at the number of times I've had to agree to CRO checks on my background, even for things like some voluntary work I do at my local library helping oldies to learn how to use the internet.
Agreeing to accept a caution is a decision with potentially very serious implications, and not one to be taken when you're stressed out, desperate to leave the police station and haven't had impartial (which, with the best will in the world, police legal advice isn't) legal advice.
Indeed, I'd extend that to saying that agreeing to be interviewed under caution without a solicitor present is rash in the exteme, even -- indeed, particularly -- when you know you haven't done anything. That's not because I'm in any way anti-police (far from it) but because I'm very aware of what can go wrong if the officer investigating the case has formed a mistaken theory as to your guilt (and the police, like the rest of us, can make mistakes now and again).
It doesn't hurt to have a solicitor present and it could save you a great of grief in the long run.
Domestic disputes are rarely simple or straightforward, and can be downright dangerous (not only to the main protagonists).
And, I hope someone dependable is looking out for the children.
To save you all the time and trouble of waiting for a solicitor i'll give you FREE legal advice now that will get you off 99% of all allegations like this!
say NO COMMENT
one persons word un co oborated.....would never see the light of day in court.
there you are save the tax payers some legal aid and gets you out of clink in double quick time.......
i could be a lawyer.....perhaps i should change careers it would be much more lucrative for less grief.
ANON
I have to say ANON is correct. The number of people that come through the doors, go "NO COMMENT" and get NFA'd is reasonably high - when they have a solicitor. While I don't doubt the guilt of some of these people the fact that they have sought legal advice leads to a release with no caution/charge. There is something that seems to galvanise a person into maintaining a "NO COMMENT" interview and makes them a little harder to get to talk. On their own few people say "NO COMMENT". Despite what many believe about police I don't enjoy seeing someone take a caution because it is the easy way out of the nick if they haven't done anything to merit it. (They are few though)
What surprise me is Bystanders theory that if Nick had called for a solicitor they may have suitable advised him in order for the case to be NFA'd. I accept you have not actually said this Bystander, but it is the inference I have drawn - I apologise if it is wrong, and also acknowledge that you state you've only heard one side of the story.
However, from personal experience, whenever I have a suspect to interview with no previous and they have a solicitor, during disclosure the solicitor will always ask whether I believe the client would be suitable for a caution. I give the standard response that "Its not my decision, blah, you know criteria for, blah,..." and add "however in my personal opinion I believe your client may fit the criteria and I would not oppose the matter being dealt with in this way."
The client then always gives a full and frank and gets the caution. Always. To the point where I start to wonder if the advice simply does sometimes come down to "just take the caution". People without a solicitor sometimes tell a story of a 50/50 fight as opposed to accepting the assault, these get charged about 50% of the time and NFA'd the rest.
Having never been on the 'other side of the fence', I really do wonder if solicitors count a caution as a good result, because they always advise the client to take it...
It may not be too late: if he was not properly advised as to the consequences of the caution (which in the absence of a lawyer he almost certainly won't have been) he could take the matter on judicial review. A strict three month time limit applies.
On the wider point, I can never understand why people decline the offer of free legal advice: it's akin to wiring up your own house because you can't be bothered to wait for an electrician.
I have a lot of time for PC Midlands but in this instance he is complacent in the extreme. Very often interviews are summarized by the police as full admissions when they are nothing of the sort. All of the officers I have come across who have got into trouble have had a solicitor and most of those have exercised their right to silence (and, yes, most of the investigations have concluded with no further action being taken, despite being conducted if anything more rigourously than standard ones)
"And, I hope someone dependable is looking out for the children."
Brother of a friend is a teacher. He has a pupil who, due to family breakdown, is starting to go off the rails.
So he figured he'd try and sort this out early before anything catastrophic happens. {Young and still enthusiastic teacher..}
He spent a day calling social services office. Each number that worked, it turned out, was for the desk of someone who did something else and didn't quite know who he could talk to but suggested some other numbers he could try.
After a day, he basically came to the conclusion that the entire of the service that social services provides is "sometimes answering the phone" and that the only help the kid will get is after he's been arrested for something.
No. No-one is looking after the kids. Not until after they've crashed a stolen car or been caught dealing or something. Then, any number of agencies will descend to assign work and blame to each other. Until then, we have just have a big long list of phone numbers of people whose job it is to not help anyone.
Katie (11.01.06 - 10:35 am):
If so, how very sad.
What I find strange, but not surprising, is that he was the only one taken to the station.
What about interrogating the accusing party ?
"PC Midlands, people, not matter how intelligent, do foolish things when they feel under pressure -- indeed (difficult though this is to believe, I know) they may sometimes even lie to the police. It seems not impossible that such lies might include someone admitting to something he hasn't done in order just -- as he sees it -- to be able to leave the police station and have the whole matter over and done with. "
So he so was scared and intimidated that he admitted to hitting his partner? Depsite the fact that, even in bystanders own post his friend was well looked after by the police?
Im sorry but I find that very hard to believe. Policing is not like "Life on mars".
"Very often interviews are summarized by the police as full admissions when they are nothing of the sort."
I have never done this and never seen it being done. This would mean lying to the your skippe, the Inspector and then somehow convincing the prisoner that they arent signing and admission.
With a taped interview you would no doubt lose your job over deceiving senior officers. Hardly worth it for a case of common assault hey?
It is far to easy to think of police as fascist soliders, picking up innocent people from the streets and forcing confessions from them. But life isnt like that.
The fact is that the Home Office will only allow a caution to be given if a: The suspect admits the offence nad b: If there is enough evidence to charge.
Like has already been said, he can appeal the decision.
He ought to appeal but you are absolutely right, always, always get legal representation.
Pascal
In this case a statement would have been taken from her at the scene (or at a later time if she was not sober enough). No need to take her to the station to 'interogate' her.
In cases where both parties are making accusations against the other it can get more confusing, however ACPO guidelines are fairly clear and generally one person will be arrested if necessary to calm the situation (gets one person away from the address)and the other is dealt with at a later stage. Doesn't prevent police from arresting both parties though and have often had to do this.
Again, as PC Midlands has said, to receive a caution the person must admit the offence, show some remorse and accept the caution. No officer would ever try to force a confession - it is far more than our job is worth.
PCM, I didn't suggest lying. Officers are not lawyers and will sometimes wrongly interpret an admission to an ingredient of the offence. As an investigating officer, would you feel able to give independent advice as to whether someone has a realistic duress argument, forinstance. Sufficient evidence to charge is far from amounting to sufficient evidence to convict; as bystander has illustrated, the consequence of a caution can be similiar to that of a conviction.
Thank goodness police are not lawyers. Then there would be no bridge between law and reality.
I am, myself, quite comfortable with my role as a Police officer vs. a solicitor's role with their client. My job, and one I try to do to the best of my ability, is get to the truth. A solicitor's role always appears to me to get his client off (not "look after his interests", "Get him off") I have never, to date, heard a solicitor use the word "Justice".
Just the other day I had a bloke to deal with, no details, but the paucity of evidence I was presented with upon arriving at work and being given the hand on pack (the "victim" had buggered off back from whence she came up country, not even turning up for the video interview that had been arranged with her only hours before) meant that I was more than happy, indeed, I felt it was only correct to say during disclosure "If I were you I'd advise your client to go no comment, there's nothing really to present in evidence and the only reason I have to interview him is because he's been arrested". Nevertheless, the client wanted to say something and I was happy to oblige. Then I ran him down the train station so he could get home. The entire thing was a waste of time and was overly stressy for the poor "suspect". I was personally furious at being shafted to deal with that crock and so did my best to get things over as quickly as possible.
It *IS* possible to have a good relationship with solicitors as a PC, I just raise my own moral standards above theirs!
Never heard a barrister use the word "justice" either come to think of it!
Martin S,
"PCM, I didn't suggest lying. Officers are not lawyers and will sometimes wrongly interpret an admission to an ingredient of the offence."
How? An admission to the offence of a common assault is very easy to cover, once the statutory defences have been covered an admission is easy to identify. It aint rocket science!
"As an investigating officer, would you feel able to give independent advice as to whether someone has a realistic duress argument, forinstance."
I think you misunderstand, we do not give advice to prisoners. It would go against everyhting we stand for.
"Sufficient evidence to charge is far from amounting to sufficient evidence to convict;"
Yes but sufficent evidence to caution is more than sufficent evidence to charge!
I am not going to get drawn into arguments over solicitors, but I do believe that they do have a place in defending people and that people should have access to them at all times. They do already however.
"He stands to lose everything he has worked for, the children he loves, and his good name."
If he loves his kids and his partner is as volatile as she appears to be, I completely understand why he accepted a caution rather than risk making any accusation at all against her. The woman holds all the cards in a situation such as this.
Shall we have a whip-round and buy him one of those little concealable video cameras then? Seems to me like evidence of a good bout of spousal mentalism would go a long way towards ensuring an equitable separation.
Oh I dare says the boys in blue played the old "you'll get out much more quickly if you don't wait for the duty solicitor to arrive etc etc." Like bystander says, always always get legal advice.
Point of information - taking the accuser to the police station would have meant leaving two under-five-year-olds alone.
I don't know where you picked up that line from Tom. It is a classic. Anyone who comes in a police station via the back doors regularly knows how it works. People who don't usually realise that solicitors are there for a reason.
Bystander - could you please clear up whether your friend admitted the offence or not.
That may bring an end to this argument.
A caution is not a conviction but is a criminal record. It is worse than a conviction in that it lasts forever. It never becomes spent. The government did propose to fix this anomaly but they have not got round to it yet as far as I am aware. Say "bye bye" to getting/keeping visas or sensitive jobs if you accept a caution. You would rarely be worse off by going to court and in many cases you won't be taken there.
PCM - He must have admitted his guilt to have been cautioned, as we know. The issue is whether he should have done so.
Bystander - If he admitted his guilt, then presumably he was guilty.
Therefore the option of a caution is better than court.
You are saying that if he had a solicitor then he might have been able, literally to get away with a crime. Hardly good advice from someone representing the judicial system is it?
Oh as for the title of this topic "This Could Be Any of Us" - No it couldnt.
"Bystander - If he admitted his guilt, then presumably he was guilty."
Come on PC Midlands. There are any number of cases of miscarriages of justice that start with an admission of guilt. If a suspect denies guilt then presumably he is innocent, no?
Isn't the offer of a caution tantamount to the police saying that the chances of a conviction are slim, and therefore the best advice is to admit nothing and not to accept the caution?
"Come on PC Midlands. There are any number of cases of miscarriages of justice that start with an admission of guilt. If a suspect denies guilt then presumably he is innocent, no?"
Yes if we still beat up prisoners and didnt have PACE. But the cases ypu mention are decades on.
Some people just cat let go and believe that we dont do that anymore. These same people have never come withing 50 yards of a cell block.
"Isn't the offer of a caution tantamount to the police saying that the chances of a conviction are slim, and therefore the best advice is to admit nothing and not to accept the caution?"
No cautions are only given when there is enough to charge! The chances of a conviction with a caution are very high.
Im off to work now, ready with my stash of class a drugs to plant on someone.
Oh come off it PCM, how many of us would like to have every aspect of our lives dissected in a police interrogation whilst unrepresented.
None of us knows what happened that night: we weren't there. He may have made a false confession to get out of the police station (it does happen);he may have a defence (which isn't destroyed by a positive answer to a leading question: " so you admit you weren't acting in self defence";"so you admit you wre reckless" are two common examples).
At the very least, he was entitled not to incriminate himself and to test the evidence against him in court. Absent legal advice, he was unable to make an informed decision as to whether he should exercise those rights. So, yes, it could be any of us.
SCC, I was glad of the exclamation marks at the end of your post denoting that your comments were to be taken ironically. Otherwise I might have confused you with one of those ghastly overzealous officers who consider themselves superior to the rest of us.
Yes, lawyers do talk of justice and when they do the same bullshit alarm sounds as when police officers speak of morality.
Before you toddle off to work, I'll just say that I wasn't thinking of beating people up in the cells. There are many and varied reasons why people might admit to a crime they didn't commit, or which didn't even happen - to cover for someone else, misplaced sense of guilt over events, psychological problems, low intelligence, fear of a criminal record (it's just a caution) etc. If you're not thinking straight enough to accept free legal advice you're probably not thinking straight enough to accept a caution and all that follows it.
I would have thought a Caution was a very bad idea. Don't they stay with you for life? A sentence, served, disappears from the records after X number of years....or so I thought.
An admission is enough to charge. Being told, nudge nudge, wink wink, off tape that if you make an admission on tape, you'll be "let off" with a caution could cause you to make that admission (which would be enough to charge). Bit of a circular argument to make. Plea bargains are an affront to justice, an assertion that I don't feel minded to caveat with an "in my opinion".
Not entirely incidentally, I used to live in a flat backing on to the cells at a small hicksville police station. While the usual nocturnal inhabitants were of the Howling Drunk variety, one of my student chums enjoyed a (fairly light) slapping in one of those cells in, oh, 1994 or so, for the heinous crime of Walking With a Traffic Cone on his Head when the Arresting Officers Had Nothing Better To Do than Do Him Over.
12 years ago, I grant you, but I suspect the significant issue is that bitter small minded small town hicks are much the same the world over, and it's perhaps best not to assume that all cases involve sophisticated metropolitan forces conducting their business under the yoke of checks and balances.
"So you hurt her?"
"Yes officer, but only after she'd thrown the ash tray"
"So you hurt her first?"
"Only becuase she was drunk and couldn't hit anything. I only wanted to stop her, so she could hurt the children by accident"
A full confession of guilt, enough for a caution as I understand it...
PC Midlands: To you and your colleagues, the police station is a nice, normal comforting place. To someone who has little contact with the law, the whole thing is a nightmarish ordeal.
I recall being arrested about aged 19 having never been in trouble with the law before. We were whisked off to nearest big town and locked in the cells. It turned out that on the night when we had done something stupid and slightly criminal, a couple of other very criminal things had taken place. They clearly wanted to wrap all all the cases in one. I can honestly say that given the pressure we were put under (including nicotine withdrawal), I was very close to admitting to anything. Had they had cautions back then, then I probably would've taken it just to get out. Yes, they offered us a phonecall to a solicitor but I didn't know the numbers of any. No other advice given.
Oh yes, and just as in the case of Bystander's friend, the "good cop" who said he'd sort us out, give us a lift home etc. buggered off without trace.
Still, it did put me off offending again. Even if the whole experience left me with a deep distrust of the police.
I think the point is that right or wrong guilty or not, saying or admitting the "wrong" thing is how our legal system works - it's a all bit of a "game" ... this may be a bad thing.
I will make a more detailed answer later but how about this for you caution haters:
On more occasions that I can care to remember I have dealt with people in the following situation: they take their right to a solictor.
After giving full disclosure to the solictor and with a wealth of evidence against the suspect he then goes "NO COMMENT" in interview.
Therefore his chance of a caution is gone and a trial takes place he ends up (sometimes) with a penalty worse than a caution.
Now that is bad advice but one in which the solicitor knows will guarantee him/herself a court fee.
Is that right?
And if you do not believe that this happens then you do not live in the real world.
At least the motives for doing my job are not purely financial.
Herring, old stick, I take it that you know now that the magic words are "Yes, officer, I'll be delighted to sing like a canary... just as soon as I've spoken to the duty solicitor. Now be a good little cog and go and call him for me."
You may want to say the second sentence very quietely, mind.
People should not accept a caution until they have received legal advice. Whilst (technically) a caution is NOT a criminal conviction, it can still have devastating effects - e.g. in some circumstances, the Police are obliged to report it to employers etc. It also has to be declared in job applications if the application form asks whether any cautions have been received.
Bystander is also correct in saying that it will be highly likely to raise its' head in any subsequent criminal case or even civil case (e.g. in relation to children).
As an example, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the person will no longer be of "good character" and may have his "bad character" presented to a trial court.
PCM, you do not know what the advice is so what is your basis for judging its quality. I am afraid you are falling for the greedy lawyer stereotype without any evidence. In fact, criminal work is the worst paid area of law and its practitioners could earn more elsewhere.
And I'm curious: why do you do your job?
I'm curious and have no experience of the criminal justice system, so I don't know the answer to this.
There is an advertising blitz about benefit fraud. The adverts say that people (they don't say suspects) will be interviewed under caution and may acquire a criminal record.
I caught about 10 minutes of the BBC's Britain on the Fiddle series earlier this year. I don't think that the people who carry out the interviews are members of the Police Force. Nor (in the only segment that I saw) was there any mention of access to legal advice.
Are people being interviewed about circumstances that could lead to a criminal prosecution without access to appropriate legal guidance? If so, why is this permissible?
Best - Tony
If he had had a room of his own to go to in the house, he could have locked himself in there and spoken to the police from there when they arrived. They would have seen she had no injury and was drunk. They would have heard him deny assault and explain that she had made it up. They might have asked him if he had anywhere to go - friend or some such. No may be an honest answer. They could have given him and her the warning that if they came back, one of the parties would end up in a cell.
Police Officers are not as daft or as constipated by the politically correct world in which they are told they have to live to be unable to use their common sense.
That's how it happened to me. As she tried it, again, twice.
Happystance, these interviews are normally conducted by DWP personnel elsewhere than at a police station and therefore the duty solicitor at police stations legal aid scheme does not apply. There is another, more limited scheme (a variant of the old green form scheme) available but in practice most people get a letter from their local fraud investigation section and toddle down to the job centre merrily to make admissions of what are serious offences which sometimes attract imprisonment.
Thanks, Martin S. I have to say that that sounds deplorable.
I was wondering about this because when I was getting my hair cut, the barber was fulminating about his sister-in-law who had been caught up in some bizarre situation involving Family Tax Credits and DWP. In his version of events, the woman had constantly been in contact to express her concern about the credits' overpayments and had told the benefits office about it. However, there were something like 5 different offices or agencies involved so the situation dragged on for quite some time with no resolution. She was called in for what she thought was a standard interview that turned out to be an interview under caution. Apparently, she was devastated and couldn't believe some of the questions that she was asked (one of them was about when she had last had sex with her estranged husband). The situation hasn't been fully resolved but is now complicated by the woman's death - her family are convinced that all of these dealings contributed to it.
It may be permissible, but is it appropriate for DWP personnel to conduct interviews that can have such serious consequences without some form of legal guidance being made available or offered? If these interviews are under caution, are they recorded - or is that only a requirement of interviews in police stations?
Best - Tony
"Oh come off it PCM, how many of us would like to have every aspect of our lives dissected in a police interrogation whilst unrepresented"
No one, however if we couldnt dissect peoples lives we couldnt investigate domestics!
"He may have made a false confession to get out of the police station (it does happen)"
Yes but if you read the original post:
"The arresting officer was sympathetic, and suggested that time would be saved if Nick left his personal property at home to save the trouble of booking it all in at the station. It was now around midnight. At the police station the officers were friendly, and eased Nick through the booking-in procedures, apologising for having to put him in a cell. The PCs left the door ajar to reduce the stress. "
Hardly a hell on earth hey!
MJD:
" "So you hurt her?"
"Yes officer, but only after she'd thrown the ash tray"
"So you hurt her first?"
"Only becuase she was drunk and couldn't hit anything. I only wanted to stop her, so she could hurt the children by accident"
A full confession of guilt, enough for a caution as I understand it..."
You obviously dont know enough about the law, it is a defence if you are defending yourdelf or another. SO no that is not an admission.
"I am afraid you are falling for the greedy lawyer stereotype without any evidence. In fact, criminal work is the worst paid area of law and its practitioners could earn more elsewhere."
It happens all the time and if you dont believe it does then you are lying to yoruself. Why do you mention that they are underpaid? An excuse for these tactics? tantamount to corruption my friend.
Martin S "PCM, you do not know what the advice is so what is your basis for judging its quality."
No but I know what the evidence is in front of me!
"And I'm curious: why do you do your job?"
Why do you do yours?
I enjoy putting criminals in jail, but with the army of social workers, solicitors, yots workers, and the whole judicial system on the side of the criminal it is a hrad job to do.
Nevertheless we win an occasional battle and that has its moments. The sad truth is we are losing the war as there are too many vested interests in keeping people out of jail.
The only people to lose are the law abiding public.
"In fact, criminal work is the worst paid area of law and its practitioners could earn more elsewhere."
so could I.....just become a lawyer!
ANON
PC Midlands: 'it is a defence if you are defending yourself or another. SO no that is not an admission'
It is a defence, but I'm by no means sure the circumstances outlined in MJD's little dialogue -- I hit her first, but that's only because she missed when she drunkenly threw the ashtray at me -- constitute self-defence. I'd certainly want to know more about what happened (eg what was she doing when you hit her, how hard did you hit her and whereabouts, where were the children at the time) before deciding.
Not Saussure:
All those questions would be asked in the interview.
REMEMBER: An admission and remorse for th offence are all pre-requisites for a caution.
PC Midlands, I am sure that you are a very good officer. But, things are very different here in London! I have seen people actually deny offences and still be offered cautions!
I also have a client who has previously made false confessions. Once he confessed to a gangland killing where the victim was hacked to death - luckily for him the officers didn't believe him and banged up someone else!
Another client accepted a caution for a sexual assault committed 2-years before his arrest when he was 14 and the evidence amounted to him and two girls playing a game of 'you show me yours and i'll show you mine'. The police had no evidence, aside from a hearsay statement from one of the girl's mother as the girls had said nothing had gone one. Against legal advice he decided that he would admit the offence in interview and accept a caution. Unfortunately for him, he didn't listen to the bit of advice that told him he would go on the sex offenders register! Result one 16-year-old who properly fucked up his life by lying to the police because he thought it would get him out quicker.
There are plenty more examples of nonsense like this. The simple fact is that I know officers who would offer a caution to a man who raised a defence in interview and sometimes, its not in the client's interests to fight through to trial (although sometimes it clearly is).
Anon: In a domestic violence situation the CPS have a positive prosecution policy, which means that if they have sufficient evidence then they should prosecute, even where they know that the complainant will not show up. By answering no comment in this situation you are highly likely to be charged because there would be no evidence aside from the allegation. When you give your evidence before the Court, the mags or jury would be entitled to disbelieve you as you had failed to provide your version of events when questioned by the police.
Edited By Siteowner
Nick,
ANyone doing this would clearly be breaking HO guidelines and lying to both the custody sergeant and duty inspector.
Why would they do this? We dont get paid by the detection (not yet anyway!).
Hold on a minute. Two under-fives in the house and she'd been drinking all day? Dare I even ask who was looking after them for the duration of that 12-hour drinking session?
Frankly, in his place I'd have a hard time not raising my hand to her myself.
I stumbled across this thread via a link to a link to a link to a link.... you get the idea. It looks a few days old, but can I add my two cents?
I'm a sergeant in the Met Police, and frequently perform the role of custody officer. Now, I know better than to tell a detainee whether or not to accept legal advice. That MUST be a decision for the detainee, and I will tell them so. (All of our custody suites are on CCTV, so this can always be verified).
Is the suggestion that if someone declines to take legal advice, I should do my utmost to change their mind? How far should I go to convince a detainee that they should accept legal advice, even when they have made it clear to me that they don't want it? Should I refuse to allow officers to interview them until a solicitor/legal rep has arrived to represent them?
As an aside (but relevant to this) I once received a call from a legal rep who had been told by a third party that I was holding a particular detainee. He asked to speak to said detainee. The detainee told me that he didn't want to speak to a solicitor. When I passed this message on, the solicitor/legal rep threatened to make a complaint.
My point is: shouldn't people be allowed to make their own decisions on this?
Commenting by HaloScan
