to think the police shouldn't be able to lie in order to get a confession?

[JenniferJo]

Friend's son A went to the cinema with friends on Saturday night. He was walking home alone when a police car pulled up and he was arrested.

A woman had been assaulted in the city centre and he fitted the description. He's a very "young" 18 and was frightened. He didn't think to ask for a solicitor or to ask to phone his parents. He was aggressively questioned and told they had him on CCTV committing the assault and it would go better for him if he just confessed. He at least had the sense to keep denying it.

Long story short he was released without charge but his parents are fuming. It transpires that there was no CCTV evidence the police deliberately lied to try to get him to confess.

They are going to make a complaint, obviously.

But it has set me wondering. What if he had done it? Is it OK for the police to lie to get a confession when there was actually no evidence to back up their claims?

Sorry I should have said "many people". Was multi tasking while typing! But I will dispute lying is common. It's not, I've sat in on and conducted hundreds of interviews. Lying would never be tolerated.

Im not anti police at all, we need them to keep order in society following laws that we as society largely agree with.

With unsubstantiated claims the police were acting with assumed guilt rather than innocent until proven guilty which is where we have issues.

No need to apologise! :) I don't envy the Police their job, and can also vouch that not all officers are corrupt.

BreakingDad77 I totally agree with your last statement, unfortunately if the Police are looking for a criminal and you fit the description, they won't be all sweetness and light.

I can only speak for my force, but you are asked if you want a solicitor a) when you're booked into custody, b) when you're booked out for interview and c) at the start of the interview itself. Police can't advise whether people get a solicitor or not, but they are offered one several times. When being booked in you are also asked if you want to phone anyone.

If someone gives an alibi during interview, it's perfectly acceptable to probe it, as shock/horror, people do lie unfortunately. What your friends son may have deemed aggressive questioning may have just been in depth questioning around his alibi to ensure there were no holes, or bits that didn't add up. The other side of this is someone has been assaulted, and harsh though it is that your friends son has been arrested when he didn't have anything to do with it, the police do have a job to do, and need to be satisfied as to any involvement.

They aren't allowed to lie, but I do wonder if they might have phrased it like someone else suggested, eg if there was CCTV, would you be on it, or could you explain it. I've asked questions like that myself many times. The officers would be pretty stupid to lie, all interviews are tape recorded, and the master copy is signed by the suspect and sealed up so no one has access to it unless it goes to court. I'm not going to deny there are corrupt officers, sadly there are corrupt people in all professions, but to do something like that would be daft. The majority of us want to keep our jobs and not be suspended with a gross misconduct charge hanging over us.

I wonder if he was so "frightened" he may have got the wrong end of the stick, or just interpreted things wrong. For what it's worth, if someone seems particularly scared or upset, or is a first timer in custody, I will always explain things in mega detail, make them a cuppa, and check if they want a solicitor. However, whilst I think I am a pretty nice interviewer, I still have to ask lots of questions to make sure everything is covered, and I'm sure some people are upset by that. Turn the tables and put yourself as the victim of a crime - I'm sure if someone was arrested for a crime against you you would want to know that a very robust interview was carried out, to either confirm guilt or innocence. I would hate to have it in my conscience that an innocent person was charged with an offence, but similarly get frustrated when a clearly guilty party isn't. A lot of the time we're dammed if we do and dammed if we don't, and that relates to lots of parts of our job.

I'm a nice white middle class person. I have never had so much as a parking ticket, and my only contact with the police has been when being searched on entry to a festival and on demonstrations.

I also grew up with parents who were Irish in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings, lived through the miners strike and watch the news. My parents taught me that if I ever did come into contact with the police I should know my rights and should not under any circumstances answer any questions without taking legal advice.

Although I believe that most individual police officers are decent people who choose their job through a sense of wanting to serve society, I would also pass this advice on to any young person for whom I was responsible.

apparently they can lie in an interview to get a confession. it's a "recognised technique", or at least that's what I was told when I put in a formal complaint about 2 officers on my local force.

i'm actually shocked at how many people are naïve about corruptness in the police force and the way they treat innocent people.

ps I don't mean all officers are corrupt, of course not. like in all professions, you get good guys, and bad guys. it just goes on a lot more that people think.

Hard to call. Police are usually very careful not to get false confessions, or confessions that won't be permissible in court. They don't want the wrong guy.

But it's also a lesson in why you don't ever talk to the police without a lawyer.

In the US, most confessions are thrown out in court because we have a right not to incriminate ourselves. It has to be a strictly voluntary confession with everything explained up front including the right to have access to a lawyer.

Really, these interrogation rooms only catch the dumb criminals. Smart ones know better, and often wait until the court proves them guilty. But if you confess or accept a plea bargain, you're already guilty.

Anyway, police really aren't out to get you. I'd say 9/10 police officers I've run into were stand up guys, and that 1 I just didn't like because he was a dick about giving a speeding ticket.

19lottie82 I don't think anyone denies that the corruption exists, but a few posters were implying that the entire Force is corrupt. For those of us with family members and friends who are officers, it just isn't true.
Corruption exists, but not every officer is corrupt/a bad person. :)

Wheresthelight - The police are perfectly within their rights to lie to a suspect under ANY circumstances, this is well established under UK law and USA law. In law school my criminal law professor used to tell anecdotes about clients he represented when he was a public defender early in his career. It was remarkable how many suspects still believe the myth that if you ask a cop outright if he is a police office (think drug deal situation) then the cop has to admit it...er, no!

Sorry, the boy arrested has no cause for complaint about the police lying to him. He might have a reason to complain if he was not advised of his right to a solicitor at the time of his arrest.

Lesson - always demand a solicitor, and don't let the police get under your skin when you do. The common response from the police is to tell you that it makes you look more guilty if you demand a lawyer. You must have something to hide etc... don't fall for it.

Well, this has been really interesting.

My respect for the police and the law has plummeted. It's OK to lie to suspects? Not in my book.

rainbunny that is absolute nonsense regarding the law here.

Well, the flip side of this is that while the police can lie to you, you have a right to not incriminate yourself under the Fifth Amendment (USA law) and the Right to Silence (UK Law), although in limited circumstance a jury is allowed to make an inference or not from the defendant's silence.

So it kind of evens it out, the police can lie but you can refuse to talk and the police cannot compel you to talk or have your silence count against you (with the one exception I referred to).

19lottie82 - wow, I'm glad I don't work in your force area. I have never knowingly lied to a suspect, nor would I want to. Nor is lying a recognised interview technique where I am.

CCTV can be a difficult one, especially for crimes like shoplifting. You would think all CCTV footage would play on police computers? Wrong, a lot of it doesn't, and has to be sent to a special unit to be put in the right format it. This often means it hasn't been seen, and can't be viewed in interview. However, store detectives will often tell you they've got brilliant footage of the crime/offender. I have said this before in interview, as I've taken what the store detective said at face value. However, I swiftly learnt not to do this, as been caught out when eventually watching CCTV and finding out it's actually rubbish, and it's pretty embarrassing.

I work with the police and would be horrified if one of them breached the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. It just isn't done where I am. Interviews are recorded, the officers would have to be incredibly stupid to do this. Not saying it didn't happen, but if it's exactly as described a complaint is absolutely vital.

I'm afraid I've had a bad experience with police so this behaviour doesn't surprise me. In certain forces if you just happen to hit their bad buttons (by being black in london it seems or english in wales, or a young bloke with long hair and piercings / tattoos anywhere, for instance) they will feel able to treat you however they like. I've also known them to look the other way with drugs / stolen goods dealers if they have contacts in the police force. I have no respect for the law establishment in uk.

I hope the young chap recovers.

"The police are perfectly within their rights to lie to a suspect under ANY circumstances, this is well established under UK law and USA law. "

I am in the UK and so interested in that side but I had no idea this was the case. I am incredibly shocked. I can't actually believe that. So if a police officer lies and says "if you don't confess my colleague here is going to take you out the back and assault you" is A-OK? Genuinely can't believe that. I would have imagined the law had changed to stop that sort of thing, it was something that happened in decades gone by I thought.

Although having been lied to by the police so they could have a bit of a laugh I'm not surprised that it happens.

Just more surprised that it is absolutely fine in the rules IYSWIM.

seven'its not true. I'm guessing rainbunny has done a law a level or something but has never practiced.

A police officer absolutely cannot lie about the existence of evidence.

that is not to say they don't

As a current victim of police corruption, I can confirm that they do lie, frequently and will do whatever it takes to get the case to the CPS and hopefully result in a successful prosecution regardless of whether the accused is guilty or not. Many, many police officers simply don't care about the accused and just want to rack up points for collars. The cps are no better.
I would love to say that the OPs case was unusual or that the lad was exaggerating or making it up, but it is so typical of the experience of a teenage boy vs the police that it is clearly true.

This lad would not have had to ask for a solicitor. In actual fact he would have turned one down on at least two separate occasions, firstly when he was brought into custody, secondly at the beginning of the taped interview.

If the parents want to complain about lies told by the police in interview then it can be easily investigated as it is all recorded. I would bet a lot of money though that no lies were told and he has misunderstood questions/information put to him. Either that or he has misinformed his parents as he clearly has about forgetting to ask for a solicitor.

He was told about the CCTV before they began questioning him in a room, so I'm guessing it wasn't recorded.

That's just one concern the solicitor has about the incident.

How can you possibly have any way of knowing what went on, strawberry.

I don't know definitely about the CCTV, I didn't say I did but I do strongly doubt that he was told that they had CCTV of him committing the offence if they didn't.

Re the offer of the solicitor, it is standard procedure always adhered to. Yes really.

So you know better what happened then.

When the police lied to me it wasn't being recorded they don't record every single conversation that happens from the moment they talk to you.

OP has also just said they talked about the CCTV outside of the room.

Some police are arseholes and some break the rules. POintless to pretend that's not true IMO.