Law, Evidence, Procedure and Best Practice Reviews

The course trainer was wrong in her in interpretation of when it is necessary to caution a D. Unfortunately she was rather rude in the way she dealt with this. This was addressed at the following days training at my instigation, however the fact that the initial training was wrong was never conceded. One trainer appeared to be under the impression TS enforcement powers originate from PACE. Whilst we need to have regard to PACE our enforcement powers originate from elsewhere. The last exercise on Day 2 - I was left bewildered by what this was intended to achieve. The trainer clearly stated that in some circumstances it was possible to admit an interview clearly in breach of pretty much every PACE interview requirement. Further, we were required to argue for it's inclusion regardless of the fact that it contained no evidence on which any prosecutor would seek to rely. Surely this is not best practice and not what we should be taking from the course. The trainer had a point to make, and that appeared to involve making the attendees uncomfortable - this was exacerbated by her making up facts on the spur of the moment that were not part of the original exercise brief. The attendees have a very varied level of experience. I have spoken to people who have only been with the Service for a matter of months or weeks. They are in a state of complete confusion. Personally, what I did know to be 100% correct was wrongly cast into doubt.