Have been accused of theft?
Discussion
La Liga said:
ots of accusations won't amount to threshold for granting of a warrant but still reach the threshold for PACE search powers. It's not as simple as you present it.
I dont disagree with you. I am saying some officers arrest solely to carry out a S18 search because just like you rightly say there may not be enough evidence to obtain an S8 search warrant.9mm said:
Do you accept that there are circumstances where it is most definitely advisable to refuse to comment, regardless of how 'dodgy' it may make you look in the eyes of a Police Officer or anyone else?
Yes.May bincldue - a) covering for someone b) you did it c)you want to wait out and see what they have
But I don't think this is one of them scenarios.
OP could end up causing more grief if he says nothing - bearing in mind - presumably he would tell the court what he told us if it goes to court.
Vaud said:
walm said:
Don't let that stop you.
I think he was clarifying that, in the style of IANAL it was to be taken a personal point of view rather than formal advice in any form.Wish more posters would do it.
(IANAL).
I can not advise the OP what he should do, what I posted was what I would do if I were in the OP's shoes (which fortunately I am not) in points 1 to 3 and points 4 and 5 were my observations on the conduct of Police Officers.
Mojooo said:
Whilst you have the right to silence and can fofer a defence at court don't forget that there can be ana dverse inference that you did not answer questions in the Police itnerview because you didn;t have answers that could stand up to to questionning.
No- you are innocent until proven guilty & insistence on your rights is no grounds for inference of guilt.AIUI we still have the right to a fair trial in this country.
Rovinghawk said:
No- you are innocent until proven guilty & insistence on your rights is no grounds for inference of guilt.
AIUI we still have the right to a fair trial in this country.
But it is though - stated black and white in law that adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.AIUI we still have the right to a fair trial in this country.
Also it is only human nature to wonder why someone has refused to answer questions.
Mojooo said:
But it is though - stated black and white in law that adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.
I believe this supersedes it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_Euro...
Mojooo said:
Also it is only human nature to wonder why someone has refused to answer questions.
Human nature perhaps, but not law."Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland" (2000) - Case involving two Irish citizens imprisoned for choosing to remain silent and to use their rights not to incriminate themselves when suspected of an IRA-related terrorist act. "The Court, accordingly, finds that the security and public order concerns relied on by the Government cannot justify a provision which extinguishes the very essence of the applicants' rights to silence and against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention."
Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 30th September 15:54
Rovinghawk said:
Mojooo said:
But it is though - stated black and white in law that adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.
I believe this supersedes it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_6_of_the_Euro...
It says you have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty - that is different from a total right to silence with no adverse inferences drawn.
It's perfectly possible to draw an interference: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferen...
Isn't the wording of the caution as much to prevent or deter last minute ambush defences? i.e if you had an alibi why not say so at the time? You might not have to declare it at the time you had the first opportunity but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that if you don't, and wait until the trial several months later, that it might be considered possible that the intervening time period has been used to construct said alibi, not recall it. All down to the specifics of course and IANAL.
This is what I'm getting at:
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/12/extreme-caution/
This is what I'm getting at:
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/12/extreme-caution/
Edited by 9mm on Tuesday 30th September 16:23
La Liga said:
It's perfectly possible to draw an interference: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferen...
It is then possible for this to be overruled due to the precedent mentioned above.John Murray v United Kingdson may be relevant (based on a quick search).
Point is adverse inferences alone cannot be the sole reaso nfor conviction - the prosecution must have soem other evidence - the silence just adds to it.
In this particular case they would have the victim saying OP stole their stuff and OP saying nothing. It certainly could get to court.
Point is adverse inferences alone cannot be the sole reaso nfor conviction - the prosecution must have soem other evidence - the silence just adds to it.
In this particular case they would have the victim saying OP stole their stuff and OP saying nothing. It certainly could get to court.
Mojooo said:
John Murray v United Kingdson may be relevant (based on a quick search).
Point is adverse inferences alone cannot be the sole reaso nfor conviction - the prosecution must have soem other evidence - the silence just adds to it.
In this particular case they would have the victim saying OP stole their stuff and OP saying nothing. It certainly could get to court.
The OP isn't going to be able to say much more than "I've been there but I didn't" and "she's mad" though, is he?Point is adverse inferences alone cannot be the sole reaso nfor conviction - the prosecution must have soem other evidence - the silence just adds to it.
In this particular case they would have the victim saying OP stole their stuff and OP saying nothing. It certainly could get to court.
Mojooo said:
John Murray v United Kingdson may be relevant (based on a quick search).
Point is adverse inferences alone cannot be the sole reaso nfor conviction.
The judgement there was actually that the silence was not a significant part of the reason for conviction. It's an important distinction from what you've suggested.Point is adverse inferences alone cannot be the sole reaso nfor conviction.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
It's perfectly possible to draw an interference: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferen...
It is then possible for this to be overruled due to the precedent mentioned above.Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
I think I am safe in assuming if it were relevant it would be mentioned in the section of that page that deals with the HRA, especially as it's 14 years old.
Is it in CPS's best interests to highlight it or to suppress it? I've shown binding legal precedent.I've got a textbook written for defence solicitors and it doesn't say anything about s34 being incompatible.
Many a people have had adverse inferences against them in the past 10 years.
I think the CPS have suppressed it. Little did they know a layman on Goggle would find a Wikipedia page that would unearth the truth, the truth that has seemingly escaped everyone else for 14 years, including the best criminal chambers in the land.
CPS site said:
The Right to Silence and the ECHR
The right to silence is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights. Although there is no express entitlement to remain silent, it has been held to be part of the generally recognised international standard of justice and is part of the system established by ECHR - Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29. However, this right is not absolute:
"Whether the drawing of adverse inferences from an accused's silence infringes Article 6 is a matter to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case, having particular regard to the situations where inferences may be drawn, the weight to be attached to them by national courts in their assessment of the evidence and the degree of compulsion inherent in the situation." (Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29.)
Sections 34 and 35 are, per se, not a breach of the ECHR. In Condron v UK (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 1, the Strasbourg Court recognized that the CJPOA aims to strike an appropriate balance between the right to silence and the drawing of adverse inferences. Particular caution is required before an adverse inference can be drawn, but in a situation when an explanation is clearly called for from the defendant, then his silence will be relevant in assessing the persuasiveness of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
The right to silence is protected by the European Convention of Human Rights. Although there is no express entitlement to remain silent, it has been held to be part of the generally recognised international standard of justice and is part of the system established by ECHR - Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29. However, this right is not absolute:
"Whether the drawing of adverse inferences from an accused's silence infringes Article 6 is a matter to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the case, having particular regard to the situations where inferences may be drawn, the weight to be attached to them by national courts in their assessment of the evidence and the degree of compulsion inherent in the situation." (Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29.)
Sections 34 and 35 are, per se, not a breach of the ECHR. In Condron v UK (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 1, the Strasbourg Court recognized that the CJPOA aims to strike an appropriate balance between the right to silence and the drawing of adverse inferences. Particular caution is required before an adverse inference can be drawn, but in a situation when an explanation is clearly called for from the defendant, then his silence will be relevant in assessing the persuasiveness of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff