Originally Posted by
Tashengurt
I wonder why they felt the need to arrest him rather than interview him on a voluntary basis though?
There are two reasons for inviting an individual to a voluntary rather than a "standard" interview:
a. The criteria for arrest may not have been met, i.e. the police believe that you may have been involved in the matter under investigation but have insufficient evidence to carry out an arrest.
b. They are aware that the investigation may be lenghty; almost certainly so in this case: and wish to avoid the obligations placed upon them when dealing with persons under arrest.
If it was considered on the evidence available that any charges were likely to arise from contraventions of the ANO then it is quite likely that the voluntary route would have been adopted. This would have been infuenced by the fact the that investigating body would have been the CAA and all interviews carried out by them are voluntary, although under caution and recorded.
It would be reasonable to assume that given the facts available to them the police decided to investigate the matter as manslaughter and thus provided that the evidential test was met made and an arrest before proceeding with a standard interview. It is possible that the arrest may have occurred after an initial voluntary attendance at the police station and following a voluntary interview. However if that was the case I would have expected to see some reference to the process in the police statement.
None of the above implies guilt on the part of the arrested party. Evidence to justify arrest is of a different standard to that required to lay charges. The police may arrest to further efficient investigation, gather and preserve evidence, which they will have to disclose in the event of charges being laid. We do not know how far down the inestigative route they have gone.
YS