1702769565
1702769566
【61】 Interrogation Code, para. 6：“被逮捕人应当被书面告知这些选择，以及第二个选项即值班律师将永远是免费的。”
1702769567
1702769568
【62】 Michael Zander, “The Act in the Station”, at 126.
1702769569
1702769570
【63】 Interrogation Code，附录二。
1702769571
1702769572
【64】 见Mark Berger, Legislating Confession Law in Great Britain: A Statutory Approach to Police Interrogations, 39.
1702769573
1702769574
【65】 Interrogation Code, para. 6.6．见David Wolchover and Anthony Heaton-Armstrong, “The Questioning Code Revamped”, at 238，非常详细地讨论了这个问题。
1702769575
1702769576
【66】 1991年的执行守则要求对所有的讯问进行同步录音，无论是在警察局内还是警察局外，除非这样做不可行。见《讯问守则》para 11.5 (a)。
1702769577
1702769578
【67】 Code of Practice on Tape Recording（见附录二）。对英国警察与刑事证据法中讯问方面的规定的全面讨论，包括对录音录像要求的讨论，见Mark Berger, Legislating Confession Law in Great Britain: A Statutory Approach to Police Interrogations, pp. 56—57。
1702769579
1702769580
【68】 David Feldman, “Regulating Treatment of Suspect in Police Stations: Judicial Interpretation of Detention Provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”, at 463.
1702769581
1702769582
【69】 Ibid., 464 and cases cited therein.
1702769583
1702769584
【70】 R. v. Leathan 121 E. R. 589 (1861).
1702769585
1702769586
【71】 U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, “Report to the Attorney General on The Law of Pretrial Investigation” and “The Search and Seizure Exclusionary Rule”。
1702769587
1702769588
【72】 David Feldman, “Regulating Treatment of Suspect in Police Stations: Judicial Interpretation of Detention Provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”, at 452 and 468.
1702769589
1702769590
【73】 PACE, §76 (8).
1702769591
1702769592
【74】 Michael Zander, “The Act in the Station”, at 189.
1702769593
1702769594
【75】 David Feldman, “Regulating Treatment of Suspect in Police Stations: Judicial Interpretation of Detention Provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”, at 453.
1702769595
1702769596
【76】 在R. v. Harvey (1988) Crim. L. R. 241 (Central Criminal Court)“对于一名心理上有缺陷的低智商的妇女而言，听到她的爱人供述谋杀的经历，可能已经足以诱使她为了保护她的爱人而作出虚假供述。”§76（2）（b）被用来排除她的陈述。
1702769597
1702769598
【77】 Birch, “The PACE Hots Up: Confessions and Confusions Under the 1984 Act”：“第2（b）款的规定，代表着与过去的决裂……法院现在有责任在说了任何话或者做了任何事会导致供述可能不可靠时排除证据；不管是谁说的或者做的。”
1702769599
1702769600
【78】 David Feldman, “Regulating Treatment of Suspect in Police Stations: Judicial Interpretation of Detention Provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”, at 469.
1702769601
1702769602
【79】 在到达警察局之前，不必告知嫌疑人其享有的权利。然而，执行守则禁止在警告前进行任何讯问，除非存在“非常例外的情形”。Wolchover and Heaton-Armstrong, at 240．《讯问守则》，para. 11.1。
1702769603
1702769604
【80】 David Feldman, “Regulating Treatment of Suspect in Police Stations: Judicial Interpretation of Detention Provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”, at 454, discussing R. v. Ismail (1990) Crim. L. R. 109．相似地，在R. v. Sparks (1991) Crim. L. R. 128案件中，上诉法院判定，嫌疑人和一个在逮捕前就认识的警察之间就犯罪进行的“友好的交谈”属于“讯问”，嫌疑人有权受到警告并且警察应当制作笔录。尽管事实上那个警察并没有故意要规避警察与刑事证据法的要求，这个案件的判决也是如此。
1702769605
1702769606
【81】 (1991) Crim. L. R. 458．根据是R. v. Dunford (1991) Crim. L. R. 370 and cases cited in Commentary。
1702769607
1702769608
【82】 David Feldman, “Regulating Treatment of Suspect in Police Stations: Judicial Interpretation of Detention Provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”, at 458, citing R. v. Alladice (1988) 87 Cr. App. R. 380 (C. A.).
1702769609
1702769610
【83】 David Feldman, “Regulating Treatment of Suspect in Police Stations: Judicial Interpretation of Detention Provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”, at 458, citing R. v. Samuel (1988) Q. B. 615 (C. A.).
1702769611
1702769612
【84】 David Feldman, “Regulating Treatment of Suspect in Police Stations: Judicial Interpretation of Detention Provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984”, at 458, citing R. v. Davision (1988) Crim. L. R. 442 (Central Criminal Court).
1702769613
1702769614
【85】 David Wolchover and Anthony Heaton-Armstrong, “The Questioning Code Revamped”, at 232,234.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.702769565e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]