24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4
Discussion
timbob said:
Refusing to cooperate and answer questions is something that, legally, in court, a jury is not even allowed to draw an inference from - let alone use as evidence against a suspect. There are particular rules about when refusal to answer a specific question is allowed to be used as a “mark” against a defendant.
Of course he’s quite obviously, highly likely to be guilty as sin, but there was nothing but circumstantial evidence in the case.
The phrase “beyond ALL reasonable doubt” (as opposed to “beyond all REASONABLE doubt”) means that the jury have to be absolutely 100% sure that was no other possible explanation, no matter how unlikely or improbable, and given the lack of anything concrete, there was no other way this was going to go unless the old guy incriminated himself in interview, or pleaded guilty. All the solicitor did was tell him to keep quiet - job done.
There's a lot of misunderstanding in your post. Of course he’s quite obviously, highly likely to be guilty as sin, but there was nothing but circumstantial evidence in the case.
The phrase “beyond ALL reasonable doubt” (as opposed to “beyond all REASONABLE doubt”) means that the jury have to be absolutely 100% sure that was no other possible explanation, no matter how unlikely or improbable, and given the lack of anything concrete, there was no other way this was going to go unless the old guy incriminated himself in interview, or pleaded guilty. All the solicitor did was tell him to keep quiet - job done.
Firstly, "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond all doubt" , otherwise the threshold would be beyond all doubt!
And circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict someone, if there is enough of it.
Finally, yes, a jury is not allowed to infer guilt from a no comment interview or the accused refusing to take the stand, but the reality is that juries are not obliged to justify or explain their verdict and they often do not pay by the rules.
youngsyr said:
There's a lot of misunderstanding in your post.
Firstly, "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond all doubt" , otherwise the threshold would be beyond all doubt!
And circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict someone, if there is enough of it.
Finally, yes, a jury is not allowed to infer guilt from a no comment interview or the accused refusing to take the stand, but the reality is that juries are not obliged to justify or explain their verdict and they often do not pay by the rules.
As far as my experience of crown court has been (2 weeks jury service, 1 other crown court trial as a family member of a victim), the judges on all occasions have phrased it “so that you are SURE. Nothing less will do”. The phrase reasonable doubt has actually never come into it. If we accepted as a jury that there was a slight possibility, however improbable that there could have been another explanation, the instructions given by the judge state the suspect must be found not guilty. Firstly, "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond all doubt" , otherwise the threshold would be beyond all doubt!
And circumstantial evidence can be enough to convict someone, if there is enough of it.
Finally, yes, a jury is not allowed to infer guilt from a no comment interview or the accused refusing to take the stand, but the reality is that juries are not obliged to justify or explain their verdict and they often do not pay by the rules.
So it would appear “beyond all doubt” is pretty much the message going out to juries.
timbob said:
Refusing to cooperate and answer questions is something that, legally, in court, a jury is not even allowed to draw an inference from
A layman serving on a jury would, I suggest, draw an inference from the fact that an accused 'no commented' to every question. Whether or not he/she is legally allowed to do so.I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
The Mad Monk said:
A layman serving on a jury would, I suggest, draw an inference from the fact that an accused 'no commented' to every question. Whether or not he/she is legally allowed to do so.
I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
No you wouldn't. An innocent person might refuse to answer for exactly the same reasons a guilty person would.I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
Dr Jekyll said:
The Mad Monk said:
A layman serving on a jury would, I suggest, draw an inference from the fact that an accused 'no commented' to every question. Whether or not he/she is legally allowed to do so.
I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
No you wouldn't. An innocent person might refuse to answer for exactly the same reasons a guilty person would.I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
They are guilty.
If they are in court, on a court, they are guilty. They wouldn't be there otherwise - would they?
Stands to reason.
Take him down.
The Mad Monk said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The Mad Monk said:
A layman serving on a jury would, I suggest, draw an inference from the fact that an accused 'no commented' to every question. Whether or not he/she is legally allowed to do so.
I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
No you wouldn't. An innocent person might refuse to answer for exactly the same reasons a guilty person would.I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
They are guilty.
If they are in court, on a court, they are guilty. They wouldn't be there otherwise - would they?
Stands to reason.
Take him down.
The Mad Monk said:
berlintaxi said:
I seriously hope you are joking.
I am now too old to serve on a jury, so my opinions are academic.garyhun said:
The Mad Monk said:
berlintaxi said:
I seriously hope you are joking.
I am now too old to serve on a jury, so my opinions are academic.And as I remember we were told we could find them guilty based on nothing but gut feel. Essentially you could have 12 people go, "he looks a bit dodgy...f
k him let's just say guilty and get out of here".Munter said:
I served on a jury about 3 years ago, and only some people feel the responsibility. There was I guess 5 there who actually suggested they didn't care and wanted us to just go with guilty to speed things up...before we heard most of the case.
And as I remember we were told we could find them guilty based on nothing but gut feel. Essentially you could have 12 people go, "he looks a bit dodgy...fk him let's just say guilty and get out of here".
Quite so.And as I remember we were told we could find them guilty based on nothing but gut feel. Essentially you could have 12 people go, "he looks a bit dodgy...f
k him let's just say guilty and get out of here".If he were innocent he wouldn't be in the dock, would he?
The Mad Monk said:
I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgikThat video refers to the US, but much of it is applicable to the UK too.
As for your other posts "they are in court so must be guilty" - I can only imagine that you are joking. Just take a look at the huge number of people who are wrongly CONVICTED (later proven by new evidence, new testing methids for DNA etc), never mind those who must be wrongly ACCUSED then tried.
Nyphur said:
The Mad Monk said:
I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgikThat video refers to the US, but much of it is applicable to the UK too.
As for your other posts "they are in court so must be guilty" - I can only imagine that you are joking. Just take a look at the huge number of people who are wrongly CONVICTED (later proven by new evidence, new testing methids for DNA etc), never mind those who must be wrongly ACCUSED then tried.
A friend of mine was called for jury service. He wrote to the court explaining that, in his opinion, everyone charged is guilty. Because if they weren't guilty the police/CPS wouldn't have charged them. He was told that his services were not required.
Edited by The Mad Monk on Sunday 18th March 17:37
Edited by The Mad Monk on Sunday 18th March 17:38
You are either joking, insane, simple, or trolling.
Presumably then you would have no issue with being wrongly accused and convicted of a crime, and spending the rest of your days incarcerated, along with 98 other innocents, so long as another guilty party was there with you?
Absolute nonsense.
Presumably then you would have no issue with being wrongly accused and convicted of a crime, and spending the rest of your days incarcerated, along with 98 other innocents, so long as another guilty party was there with you?
Absolute nonsense.
If you refuse to answer questions under caution the court/jury CAN draw a negative inference - what that means in reality will depend on each individual - some may think that a person doesn't have to talk whereas others will think he must be dodgy if they didn't talk.
The fact that someone didn't talk in interview isn't proper evidence in that it wouldn't be relied upon as evidence to bring the case.
Following the USA advice of always saying nothing could be far from ideal in the UK - particularly for someone who is innocent, has an explanation and the ends up getting charge and going to court.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-infe...
I have done interviews under caution and my experience has been
The fact that someone didn't talk in interview isn't proper evidence in that it wouldn't be relied upon as evidence to bring the case.
Following the USA advice of always saying nothing could be far from ideal in the UK - particularly for someone who is innocent, has an explanation and the ends up getting charge and going to court.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-infe...
I have done interviews under caution and my experience has been
I'm sure in the past when the accused has gone down the 'no comment' route, the police have said he/she is free to do that but at the end of the day it's they who will be in court and not the lawyer. The police then point out that once in the court, the 'no comment' route may not be looked on favourably by the jury if they are innocent.
I'm surprised the lawyers don't pipe up at that point but they seem to accept it.
I'm surprised the lawyers don't pipe up at that point but they seem to accept it.
If you want to see why no comment interviews might be a good idea and not how to do it..
Fred Talbot - nonce weatherman off the telly.
https://youtu.be/xQhpBwyUOPo
This example was shown in my training. He essentially starts with no comment but then cracks.
He essentially hangs himself at this point.
It's harder than you think saying no comment for hours at a time. PACE sets out questioning rules i.e no less than 10 seconds between questions.
In some cases the brief will advise to go no comment in the early stage purely to see what evidence the police will disclose.
Fred Talbot - nonce weatherman off the telly.
https://youtu.be/xQhpBwyUOPo
This example was shown in my training. He essentially starts with no comment but then cracks.
He essentially hangs himself at this point.
It's harder than you think saying no comment for hours at a time. PACE sets out questioning rules i.e no less than 10 seconds between questions.
In some cases the brief will advise to go no comment in the early stage purely to see what evidence the police will disclose.
HairyMaclary said:
If you want to see why no comment interviews might be a good idea and not how to do it..
Fred Talbot - nonce weatherman off the telly.
https://youtu.be/xQhpBwyUOPo
This example was shown in my training. He essentially starts with no comment but then cracks.
He essentially hangs himself at this point.
It's harder than you think saying no comment for hours at a time. PACE sets out questioning rules i.e no less than 10 seconds between questions.
In some cases the brief will advise to go no comment in the early stage purely to see what evidence the police will disclose.
Why is there not a more efficient way to do it? I know they are following Miranda rights (you do have have to say anything...) but it just seems an insane approach. Do they did there for 4 hours saying no comment? Has anyone used a pre recorded "No comment" to save their vocal chords?Fred Talbot - nonce weatherman off the telly.
https://youtu.be/xQhpBwyUOPo
This example was shown in my training. He essentially starts with no comment but then cracks.
He essentially hangs himself at this point.
It's harder than you think saying no comment for hours at a time. PACE sets out questioning rules i.e no less than 10 seconds between questions.
In some cases the brief will advise to go no comment in the early stage purely to see what evidence the police will disclose.
Dr Jekyll said:
The Mad Monk said:
A layman serving on a jury would, I suggest, draw an inference from the fact that an accused 'no commented' to every question. Whether or not he/she is legally allowed to do so.
I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
No you wouldn't. An innocent person might refuse to answer for exactly the same reasons a guilty person would.I would think that no innocent person would refuse to answer every question. And I think that i would be right to think that.
His solicitor advised that as there was no offence there was no evidence, therefore answering questions could only benefit the police (especially as some of the questions were leading).
He was told to answer "no comment" to every question.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff