4 ms·

The UK doesn't have the same right to silence. Nor anything about taking the fifth either. Refusal to answer could be taken as obstruction of justice or contemp

The UK doesn't have the same right to silence. Nor anything about taking the fifth either. Refusal to answer could be taken as obstruction of justice or contempt of court, and will likely be considered relevant information for a jury.

jmkni 7y ago
It goes further in Northern Ireland, the jury are allowed to infer guilt from your silence - https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf
- Joeboy 7y ago
  Also in England and Wales, since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 I believe.
marksweston 7y ago
This is strongly overstating the case: The UK right to silence is pretty well summarised in the modern wording of the police caution: "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." Staying silent is not obstruction of justice or contempt of court. No one is ever required to respond to questioning. But it might lose you credibility in court of you produce an alibi or other defence at trial that you didn't mention during questioning. The only exception is passwords and encryption keys, which have to be supplied if a court order is obtained and aren't considered testimony.
- andyjpb 7y ago
  The right to silence was changed to this in the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The reason for the change (AIUI) was due to the arrest of IRA dissidents who remained silent and then produced alibis in court that would have been easy to dispel at the time but were not so easily dismissed in court, once they had gathered support from their communities. Incidentally, the 1994 act also banned music containing "repetitive beats" and legalised anal sex between heterosexual couples, albeit with a number of caveats and conditions. More info is available at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Or...
cameronh90 7y ago
It's a bit more nuanced than that. Obviously we can't "take the fifth" since we don't share the US constitution, but we do have a right to silence when you're the defendant in typical criminal proceedings and you can't be held in contempt for that silence. However there is no right to silence for example during investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, or when requiring disclosure of encryption keys under RIPA. However in the case of a SFO investigation, if they then want to charge you criminally, you have the right to silence and they can't use evidence you've been compelled to give previously. The RIPA stuff is bullshit and is widely considered overreach but the powers that be really don't want to change it for obvious reasons. In criminal proceedings, you have a right to silence - however in limited, defined situations, adverse inferences can be drawn from that silence. Adverse influences can't be drawn until you've had the opportunity to seek legal advice, so the advice to shut up and ask for a lawyer still stands. The cases where adverse influences can be drawn are things like refusing to answer why you were in a particular place at the time of arrest and for example only coming up with an answer days later or even at court. Your lawyer will of course advise you what you need to answer. That said, irrespective of what the law says and how the judge directs the jury, nothing can stop them drawing adverse influences from whatever they want to draw adverse influences from. So it's possibly worth considering that when deciding to remain silent.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
In one of my stints of jury service, the accused had heavily exercised his right to silence over a lengthy period. At the subsequent trial the judge made a point of instructing the jury we must infer nothing at all from his silence and judge solely on the facts of the case, as presented in court. I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against, and how, but it is absolutely nowhere near obstruction of justice or contempt of court.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  > I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against Technically this is true. If you make a statement to the police, then that statement can be used as evidence at trial (both against you and in your defence). If you don’t make a statement, then the only way to get your testimony in front of the jury (should that be necessary), is to take the stand, where you will be subjected to cross examination. A process where you (probably not a lawyer) will have to argue with a lawyer who will be doing their best to make you trip over every single thing you say, in front of a jury, for a number of hours. So while it does potentially have a benefit, it’s still always a bad idea, because you’ll want to see the discovery before you say anything at all.
  - jhauris 7y ago
    That benefit seems extremely marginal when the presumption if innocence is the standard. Your explanation for the UK police caution phrasing makes perfect sense, but I wonder now if it's not meant to scare people into talking?
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      The presumption of innocence is theoretical at best. A prosecutor will present a theory of the case along with their evidence. Simply undermining that theory is often not enough to convince a jury, they’ll often expect the defence to put forward and substantiate a superior theory. I don’t know the motives of putting that in the warning. But it is at least true, even if it’s almost universally not a good idea.
hef19898 7y ago
In Germany you do not have to answer questions in cases you would imply yourself or a family member. No idea how it impacts any trials if you do, but from I read and heard it usually doesn't have negative impacts.
- Lev1a 7y ago
  > ~~imply~~ > implicate FTFY
throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
Refusal to answer can bite you in the ass in the United States. Make sure to say “I want my lawyer” nonstop.

jmkni 7y ago

It goes further in Northern Ireland, the jury are allowed to infer guilt from your silence - https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ai/1993-02-01_ai.pdf

Joeboy 7y ago
Also in England and Wales, since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 I believe.

marksweston 7y ago

This is strongly overstating the case: The UK right to silence is pretty well summarised in the modern wording of the police caution: "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." Staying silent is not obstruction of justice or contempt of court. No one is ever required to respond to questioning. But it might lose you credibility in court of you produce an alibi or other defence at trial that you didn't mention during questioning. The only exception is passwords and encryption keys, which have to be supplied if a court order is obtained and aren't considered testimony.

andyjpb 7y ago
The right to silence was changed to this in the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The reason for the change (AIUI) was due to the arrest of IRA dissidents who remained silent and then produced alibis in court that would have been easy to dispel at the time but were not so easily dismissed in court, once they had gathered support from their communities. Incidentally, the 1994 act also banned music containing "repetitive beats" and legalised anal sex between heterosexual couples, albeit with a number of caveats and conditions. More info is available at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Or...

cameronh90 7y ago

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Obviously we can't "take the fifth" since we don't share the US constitution, but we do have a right to silence when you're the defendant in typical criminal proceedings and you can't be held in contempt for that silence. However there is no right to silence for example during investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, or when requiring disclosure of encryption keys under RIPA. However in the case of a SFO investigation, if they then want to charge you criminally, you have the right to silence and they can't use evidence you've been compelled to give previously. The RIPA stuff is bullshit and is widely considered overreach but the powers that be really don't want to change it for obvious reasons. In criminal proceedings, you have a right to silence - however in limited, defined situations, adverse inferences can be drawn from that silence. Adverse influences can't be drawn until you've had the opportunity to seek legal advice, so the advice to shut up and ask for a lawyer still stands. The cases where adverse influences can be drawn are things like refusing to answer why you were in a particular place at the time of arrest and for example only coming up with an answer days later or even at court. Your lawyer will of course advise you what you need to answer. That said, irrespective of what the law says and how the judge directs the jury, nothing can stop them drawing adverse influences from whatever they want to draw adverse influences from. So it's possibly worth considering that when deciding to remain silent.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

In one of my stints of jury service, the accused had heavily exercised his right to silence over a lengthy period. At the subsequent trial the judge made a point of instructing the jury we must infer nothing at all from his silence and judge solely on the facts of the case, as presented in court. I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against, and how, but it is absolutely nowhere near obstruction of justice or contempt of court.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against Technically this is true. If you make a statement to the police, then that statement can be used as evidence at trial (both against you and in your defence). If you don’t make a statement, then the only way to get your testimony in front of the jury (should that be necessary), is to take the stand, where you will be subjected to cross examination. A process where you (probably not a lawyer) will have to argue with a lawyer who will be doing their best to make you trip over every single thing you say, in front of a jury, for a number of hours. So while it does potentially have a benefit, it’s still always a bad idea, because you’ll want to see the discovery before you say anything at all.
- jhauris 7y ago
  That benefit seems extremely marginal when the presumption if innocence is the standard. Your explanation for the UK police caution phrasing makes perfect sense, but I wonder now if it's not meant to scare people into talking?
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    The presumption of innocence is theoretical at best. A prosecutor will present a theory of the case along with their evidence. Simply undermining that theory is often not enough to convince a jury, they’ll often expect the defence to put forward and substantiate a superior theory. I don’t know the motives of putting that in the warning. But it is at least true, even if it’s almost universally not a good idea.

hef19898 7y ago

In Germany you do not have to answer questions in cases you would imply yourself or a family member. No idea how it impacts any trials if you do, but from I read and heard it usually doesn't have negative impacts.

Lev1a 7y ago
> ~~imply~~ > implicate FTFY

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago

Refusal to answer can bite you in the ass in the United States. Make sure to say “I want my lawyer” nonstop.