06-02-2016, 02:41 PM
12
Re: 18yr old in Gaol
Originally Posted by Tpin
->
Would you alter the law?Remove the right to 'no comment'
I'm being serious here not flippant, so why am I wrong to feel that way ......
06-02-2016, 03:02 PM
13
Re: 18yr old in Gaol
HiWe have already altered the law on refusing to answer in a couple of important areas.
The first one is Hostile Witnesses.
The second one is widely used, but not many people have heard about it.
Where Public Safety is at imminent risk, it is an offence not to answer, however if you do answer, the answers you give cannot be used against you in a Court of Law.
Saving lives is more important than prosecuting someone.
The use of this accounts for some of the weird decisions the Press sometimes criticise, but it is no great hassle.
Job done, lives saved and you can always get them next time.
06-02-2016, 04:51 PM
14
Re: 18yr old in Gaol
Originally Posted by Advantage Out
->
But isn't answering "no comment" considered a response .... thereby an answer? What about, "I don't know" - "Not sure" - "Couldn't say" - "As far as I know" ?
06-02-2016, 04:52 PM
15
Re: 18yr old in Gaol
Originally Posted by Patsy
->
I would - they should have to answer questions, why not ?I'm being serious here not flippant, so why am I wrong to feel that way ......
06-02-2016, 04:53 PM
16
Re: 18yr old in Gaol
Originally Posted by Lila
->
I doubt if any of those replies would have affected their decision not to allow bail in such cases.
06-02-2016, 05:00 PM
17
Re: 18yr old in Gaol
Originally Posted by swimfeeders
->
..... it is an offence not to answer, however if you do answer, the answers you give cannot be used against you in a Court of Law.
06-02-2016, 05:11 PM
19
Re: 18yr old in Gaol
Originally Posted by Patsy
->
My head hurts now ..................
06-02-2016, 05:13 PM
20
Re: 18yr old in Gaol
Originally Posted by Advantage Out
->
If that is true then you'd have to record everything in order to know what it is you said that cannot be used in a court of law. And then, if it is brought up during proceedings anyway you'd have to produce the recording and play it, thus airing the passage that cannot be uttered .... TWICE! Then, having heard it twice prosecutors and jury will have to dismiss it from their minds. Not an easy task, I don't think.
I don't know how you do things in Sweden, but here in the UK all such interviews are recorded digitally, the person being interviewed takes a copy of the recording with them at the end of such an interview.
As none of what has been said can be used in evidence the incident never gets to Court, so no problems for either side.
It is a pragmatic solution, saving lives is more important than taking a prosecution.
|
|
