In a uk court.....
Discussion
You don't have to answer a question in court. If you refuse to answer you don't commit perjury!
As to 'are you a freemason' unless it is directly and evidentially relevant to the trial issue you are likely to find the other side objects to the question and the Judge is likely to direct accordingly.
As to 'are you a freemason' unless it is directly and evidentially relevant to the trial issue you are likely to find the other side objects to the question and the Judge is likely to direct accordingly.
paintman said:
You don't have to answer a question in court. If you refuse to answer you don't commit perjury!
I think that once you've taken the stand and answered your name you have to answer a question or you may be guilty of contempt of court. Better not to take the stand or look like a hostile witness.Edited by Boosted LS1 on Tuesday 19th January 00:14
Boosted LS1 said:
paintman said:
You don't have to answer a question in court. If you refuse to answer you don't commit perjury!
I think that once you've taken the stand and answered your name you have to answer a question or you may be guilty of contempt of court. Better not to take the stand or look like a hostile witness.Soovy/any other eagles?
paintman said:
As to 'are you a freemason' unless it is directly and evidentially relevant to the trial issue you are likely to find the other side objects to the question and the Judge is likely to direct accordingly.
I would take this view too. I can't imagine why you'd be asked unless it was relevant - if it is, then you should answer. You don't have to answer if a question is not relevant. You can always ask the judge to clarify.
For example, in a rape case how many men a lady has slept with could be relevant, however in a drink driving case that same question will see counsel get the judge's back up, and he will be slapped down quickly.
If it isn't relevant you can usually rely upon the judge to stamp down - but under cross ex I would assume that there must have been a previous relevance/question relating to it/something in the witness statement to raise the question.
For example, in a rape case how many men a lady has slept with could be relevant, however in a drink driving case that same question will see counsel get the judge's back up, and he will be slapped down quickly.
If it isn't relevant you can usually rely upon the judge to stamp down - but under cross ex I would assume that there must have been a previous relevance/question relating to it/something in the witness statement to raise the question.
metatron said:
Under cross examination can you be asked if you are a freemason???? Or is it not the right thing to do??? I have my reasons for asking.
If you're due in court as either a witness or suspect and you have concerns about being asked this question, speak to either the prosecutor (if you're a witness) or your defence if you're a suspect. They'll then be aware of it and if there's no relevance to the case they'll be in a position to challenge any such question.I can still think of dozens of scenario's where it might be relevant but since you seem reluctant to say any more I'd suggest you refer to the above paragraph.
One might wonder why the question was being asked under cross-examination, if membership had not been introduced in chief ... in which case it would not be necessary to ask the question.
I was once asked a question about my (supposed) membership of an organisation (not the Freemasons) during cross-examination (when I had given no complementary evidence), the other counsel immediately objected and this was upheld by the Recorder.
Streaky
I was once asked a question about my (supposed) membership of an organisation (not the Freemasons) during cross-examination (when I had given no complementary evidence), the other counsel immediately objected and this was upheld by the Recorder.
Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff