4 ms·

If that's the case, then the first words out of your mouth if you are ever interrogated are "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If you say th

by splat 15y ago

If that's the case, then the first words out of your mouth if you are ever interrogated are "I would like to exercise my right to remain silent." If you say that, then the police are legally required to stop the interrogation then and there. (Ironically, simply remaining silent is not sufficient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins)

seabee 15y ago
Ironically but not unreasonably, since if silence were an indicator that you wished never to speak, people who wanted to talk would never reach that point. (In the UK there is no such thing as the right to remain silent, unless you are in a situation in which you are denied access to legal advice (rare). In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you. Funny how it differs.)
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  > In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you. Isn't that effectively the same thing?
a3camero 15y ago
This is not the case in Canada! I'm sure it isn't the case in many other countries too. Here's someone who said 18 times that he didn't want to talk to the police and asserted his right to silence. Appeal denied. Convicted of murder. 2007 Supreme Court of Canada case (R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=interrogation+silence+voluntariness&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/2007/2007scc48/2007scc48.html http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=interrogation+sil...). "Whenever the discussion turned to the incident in question, however, Mr. Singh was less forthcoming. Although he provided some information regarding his presence at the pub on the night of the shooting, he repeatedly denied his involvement and asserted his right to silence. He indicated that he did not want to talk to the police, that he had nothing to say, that he knew nothing about the shooting, or that he wanted to return to his cell. Before Mr. Singh was shown the photographs in question and made the impugned admissions, he asserted his right to silence 18 times. Each time, the interviewing officer would either affirm that Mr. Singh did not have to say anything, or would explain to Mr. Singh that he had a duty or desire to place the evidence before him and he continued the interview."

by splat 15y ago

seabee 15y ago

Ironically but not unreasonably, since if silence were an indicator that you wished never to speak, people who wanted to talk would never reach that point. (In the UK there is no such thing as the right to remain silent, unless you are in a situation in which you are denied access to legal advice (rare). In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you. Funny how it differs.)

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> In all other situations your solicitor will instruct you to say 'no comment' to any question the police asks you. Isn't that effectively the same thing?

a3camero 15y ago

This is not the case in Canada! I'm sure it isn't the case in many other countries too. Here's someone who said 18 times that he didn't want to talk to the police and asserted his right to silence. Appeal denied. Convicted of murder. 2007 Supreme Court of Canada case (R. v. Singh, 2007 SCC 48, http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=interrogation+silence+voluntariness&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/2007/2007scc48/2007scc48.html http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=interrogation+sil...). "Whenever the discussion turned to the incident in question, however, Mr. Singh was less forthcoming. Although he provided some information regarding his presence at the pub on the night of the shooting, he repeatedly denied his involvement and asserted his right to silence. He indicated that he did not want to talk to the police, that he had nothing to say, that he knew nothing about the shooting, or that he wanted to return to his cell. Before Mr. Singh was shown the photographs in question and made the impugned admissions, he asserted his right to silence 18 times. Each time, the interviewing officer would either affirm that Mr. Singh did not have to say anything, or would explain to Mr. Singh that he had a duty or desire to place the evidence before him and he continued the interview."