Another prove your innocence case

[Gary C]

Dr Jekyll said:

JulianHJ said:

I wonder what account if any the defendant gave in interview; how did all of this get missed at every step?

Possibly he went 'no comment', which I'm told by solicitor friends is the best response for an innocent person .

Is it ?

Since the change of the caution, the fact that you replied 'no comment' can be used against you.

Certainly in a jury, I would tend to think someone stating 'no comment' had something to hide.

[Dr Jekyll]

Gary C said:

Is it ?

Since the change of the caution, the fact that you replied 'no comment' can be used against you.

Certainly in a jury, I would tend to think someone stating 'no comment' had something to hide.

Sure, but that's hardly enough for a conviction.

If you say 'I was in Manchester at the time the crime was committed in London' but you can't prove it, and the police have a witness who reckons you were standing outside the relevant premises. Then you come across as having even more to hide,

'the defendant initially claimed he was in Manchester, but we now have a witness who places him outside the bank just 10 minutes before it was robbed, at the exact moment he claimed to have been 200 miles away'.

Suddenly your alibi sounds like a lie., as if you must have been up to something. Just say no comment and at worst the jury think you were in the same street as the robbery, so what.

Or suppose you are asked if you knew the murder victim. If you knew him years ago and he did you harm, what possible benefit could there be in telling the police that?

[Thorodin]

In many cases accused persons are assumed to be guilty until proved innocent.

I keep waiting for a reply from a scally in interview by cops on TV: "No comment on the grounds that my reply will not be repeated within context by you or any prosecuting official". How long before the Caution is edited to lose the 'you don't have to say anything...'.

[Agammemnon]

Gary C said:

Since the change of the caution, the fact that you replied 'no comment' can be used against you.
.

I thought there was some law or other guaranteeing a fair trial. I also thought various courts ruled that insistence on one's rights may not be interpreted as any form of evidence against the defendent on the grounds that such negates those rights.

What do you think?

[otolith]

saaby93 said:

otolith said:

What an appalling waste of public money.

In low crime areas it may be a way of training people up for the big one.

I think probably police and courts know how to operate without bringing trivial prosecutions against innocent old ladies. Even in Caernarfon Crown Court.

[Gary C]

Dr Jekyll said:

Sure, but that's hardly enough for a conviction.

Certainly, but the number of police camera types of TV shows, the obviously guilty (devlis advocate mode on) almost always reply 'no comment'. In the past that couldn't be used against you in evidence I believe, but as it can, it can I would think affect a juries impression of you.

So I mean its not good advice to say 'no comment' as that may not help someone in the long run. Of course your right, a comment might actually do you even more harm !

[jshell]

Gary C said:

Certainly, but the number of police camera types of TV shows, the obviously guilty (devlis advocate mode on) almost always reply 'no comment'. In the past that couldn't be used against you in evidence I believe, but as it can, it can I would think affect a juries impression of you.

So I mean its not good advice to say 'no comment' as that may not help someone in the long run. Of course your right, a comment might actually do you even more harm !

There's a vid on YouTube where an American cop explains why saying nothing may be safest, especially if you did it.

[98elise]

Gary C said:

Dr Jekyll said:

JulianHJ said:

I wonder what account if any the defendant gave in interview; how did all of this get missed at every step?

Possibly he went 'no comment', which I'm told by solicitor friends is the best response for an innocent person .

Is it ?

Since the change of the caution, the fact that you replied 'no comment' can be used against you.

Certainly in a jury, I would tend to think someone stating 'no comment' had something to hide.

That's a little unfair.

My brother was accused of a hit and run. It didn't happen and his car was virtually new (so no damage and no signs of any repairs)

The police wanted to interview so he took a solicitor. The solicitor advised him to provide a written statement,then refuse to answer any further questions. The solicitor warned him that as he was totally innocent, answering any questions could only help the case against him.

The police questions were leading, like what time did the accident occur, or what colour was the other car involved in the accident.

If you have done nothing wrong then the police have no evidence, so why would you risk saying something that might be misconstrued and used against you.

Edited by 98elise on Saturday 7th March 23:06

[Agammemnon]

Gary C said:

Certainly, but the number of police camera types of TV shows, the obviously guilty (devlis advocate mode on) almost always reply 'no comment'. In the past that couldn't be used against you in evidence I believe, but as it can, it can I would think affect a juries impression of you.

So I mean its not good advice to say 'no comment' as that may not help someone in the long run.

"What evidence do you have against the defendant?"

"He exercised his legal rights"

"Clearly guilty, then"

I'm not entirely comfortable with an arrangement like this.

[The Mad Monk]

If I am on a jury and someone comes up in front of me and I am told that they "no commented" all the way through their interview, then they are going down.

Guilty as hell.

[anonymous-user]

Gary C said:

Is it ?

Since the change of the caution, the fact that you replied 'no comment' can be used against you.

Certainly in a jury, I would tend to think someone stating 'no comment' had something to hide.

What change in the caution?

jshell said:

There's a vid on YouTube where an American cop explains why saying nothing may be safest, especially if you did it.

If it’s the video I am thinking of it should be pretty much ignored for the UK.

There are times it’s in your best interest to provide and account, there are others where it isn’t.

It depends on the circumstances.

[98elise]

The Mad Monk said:

If I am on a jury and someone comes up in front of me and I am told that they "no commented" all the way through their interview, then they are going down.

Guilty as hell.

Read what I said about my brother. There was no case at all to answer as the hit and run simply didn't happen. All that happened was a near miss with no contract.

After the police tried to do him, the other person then tried to claim on his insurance. Unlike the police my brother's insurance company came out and inspected the car (and found an immaculate car less than a year old), so they asked the other party for evidence of an accident. Nothing materialised so it stopped there.

You would presume he was guilty for not answering questions about something that didn't happen?

Edited by 98elise on Saturday 7th March 23:20

[The Mad Monk]

98elise said:

Read what I said about my brother. There was no case at all to answer as the hit and run simply didn't happen. All that happened was a near miss with no contract.

After the police tried to do him, the other person then tried to claim on his insurance. Unlike the police my brother's insurance company came out and inspected the car (and found an immaculate car less than a year old), so they asked the other party for evidence of an accident. Nothing materialised so it stopped there.

You would presume he was guilty for not answering questions about something that didn't happen?

Edited by 98elise on Saturday 7th March 23:20

I presume your brother wouldn't "no comment" to questions. He would give a sensible, constructed answer.

Wouldn't he?

[Stay in Bed Instead]

The Mad Monk said:

If I am on a jury and someone comes up in front of me and I am told that they "no commented" all the way through their interview, then they are going down.

Guilty as hell.

Guilty until they prove themselves innocent then.

[Gary C]

La Liga said:

Gary C said:

Is it ?

Since the change of the caution, the fact that you replied 'no comment' can be used against you.

Certainly in a jury, I would tend to think someone stating 'no comment' had something to hide.

What change in the caution?

jshell said:

There's a vid on YouTube where an American cop explains why saying nothing may be safest, especially if you did it.

If it’s the video I am thinking of it should be pretty much ignored for the UK.

There are times it’s in your best interest to provide and account, there are others where it isn’t.

It depends on the circumstances.

It changed in the 90's as I remember and I believe that it modified slightly the right to silence in that the fact you said nothing could be used against you.

Certainly your right, it maybe in your best interests to say nothing, even if totally innocent, but I think its wrong for some to suggest that everyone should in all cases reply 'no comment' as it may actually harm your defense and I think that's worth pointing out.


Certainly didn't mean to suggest its a reason to be found guilty !

Edited by Gary C on Sunday 8th March 12:31

[Cold]

Gary C said:

It changed in the 90's as I remember and I believe that it modified slightly the right to silence in that the fact you said nothing could be used against you.

Certainly your right, it maybe in your best interests to say nothing, even if totally innocent, but I think its wrong for some to suggest that everyone should in all cases reply 'no comment' as it may actually harm your defense and I think that's worth pointing out.


Certainly didn't mean to suggest its a reason to be found guilty !

It's more of a reminder that if you suddenly remember a conveniently pertinent fact very late in the day that it might not carry the same weight as if that fact was made known early on.

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

[Bigends]

Cold said:

Gary C said:

It changed in the 90's as I remember and I believe that it modified slightly the right to silence in that the fact you said nothing could be used against you.

Certainly your right, it maybe in your best interests to say nothing, even if totally innocent, but I think its wrong for some to suggest that everyone should in all cases reply 'no comment' as it may actually harm your defense and I think that's worth pointing out.


Certainly didn't mean to suggest its a reason to be found guilty !

It's more of a reminder that if you suddenly remember a conveniently pertinent fact very late in the day that it might not carry the same weight as if that fact was made known early on.

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Basically, if you decline to answer questions in interview but later decide to answer those same questions in court - then the court may be less likely to believe you.

[Gary C]

"The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:

fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. There may be no conviction based wholly on silence""

I remember reading something that before 1994, the prosecution could not draw negative inferences from silence ?

[Bigends]

Gary C said:

"The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:

fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. There may be no conviction based wholly on silence""

I remember reading something that before 1994, the prosecution could not draw negative inferences from silence ?

A special warning must be given by the interviewing officer in relation to the objects and suspects presence aspects of the above making them aware that inferences can later be drawn

A prepared written statement can reduce the chances of inferences being drawn if it covers most of the points raised in interview. They can be introduced at the beginning or the end of the no comment interview

Edited by Bigends on Sunday 8th March 22:13

[saaby93]

How would this one have gone if it wasnt for the dashcam evidence?
https://www.rugbyadvertiser.co.uk/news/crime/elder...