4 ms·
I’m pretty sure that law got extended to the rest of the UK a few years later. (I agree with your overall point though.)
by dave4420 2y ago
I’m pretty sure that law got extended to the rest of the UK a few years later.
(I agree with your overall point though.)
- arrowsmith 2y ago“You don’t have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you don’t mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court.” That’s what UK cops say when arresting someone.
- southernplaces7 2y agoWhat an absolutely repulsive and manipulative abuse of power asymmetry against the civil population. This is especially the case coming from a country that at least ostensibly makes claim to being a defender of civil liberties. To assume that a person going through the deeply stressful, possibly traumatic process of being arrested is going to have a clear mind on what to say, not say or remember as useful for their defense is ridiculous. Nobody should be expected to remember exactly what things to say so that they later don't harm their defense in a potentially complex trial with all kinds possible outcomes and evidence that they know nothing about in advance. This applies especially in not uncommon cases of a victim being arrested by mistake for something they didn't even do. They could easily have no idea at all about why they're being targeted, yet should know what statements they should or shouldn't make right from the moment of their arrest? Laughable nonsense. We can make many arguments for the abusive aspects of the U.S. criminal justice system but at least the basic but generally firm rule of having a complete right to silence gives one decent advantage to those suddenly confronted with judicial power.