Lad convicted by the Special Criminal "court" of INLA membership.

Man guilty of INLA membership - The Irish Times - Wed, Oct 28, 2009

Now, we all know that the SCC is an affront to democracy, but this is the bit that really bothers me today.

"The court also found it was entitled to draw inferences from Lee’s failure to answer important questions put to him by gardaí over the course of six interviews carried out during the investigation."

Do we have a right to silence or not ?

PS Please, this is not a thread about the INLA or repubicanism. It's about the quality of justice our citizens enjoy.

You do and you don't. Certain legislation allows inferences from silence to be drawn in particular circumstances. You cannot be forced to incriminate yourself however. It's also perfectly acceptable under the Constitution and the ECHR.

Yeah nobody is saying he had to speak, but it's pretty well excepted that if you remain silent, especially with relation to certain questions put to you, that your silence may be looked upon in an "incriminating" light. I think that's fair enough really and I would be a civil liberties kind of guy.

That came in the 2007 Criminal Justice Act, I think. Inferences can be drawn from a refusal to account for certain things (defined in the act). It seems fairly reasonable and proportionate to me. Presumably, "inferences can be drawn" does not automatically mean someone is guilty.

Originally Posted by Derrida

Lad convicted by the Special Criminal "court" of INLA membership.

Man guilty of INLA membership - The Irish Times - Wed, Oct 28, 2009

Now, we all know that the SCC is an affront to democracy, but this is the bit that really bothers me today.

"The court also found it was entitled to draw inferences from Lee’s failure to answer important questions put to him by gardaí over the course of six interviews carried out during the investigation."

Do we have a right to silence or not ?

PS Please, this is not a thread about the INLA or repubicanism. It's about the quality of justice our citizens enjoy.

Court is entitled to draw inferences...that's all. It's not allowed base a conviction on silence.

And no, the SCC is not an affront to democracy.

Originally Posted by Derrida

Lad convicted by the Special Criminal "court" of INLA membership.

Man guilty of INLA membership - The Irish Times - Wed, Oct 28, 2009

Now, we all know that the SCC is an affront to democracy, but this is the bit that really bothers me today.

"The court also found it was entitled to draw inferences from Lee’s failure to answer important questions put to him by gardaí over the course of six interviews carried out during the investigation."

Do we have a right to silence or not ?

PS Please, this is not a thread about the INLA or repubicanism. It's about the quality of justice our citizens enjoy.

good enough for him the inlas a shower of murderin basterds!!!

Originally Posted by Stendec

good enough for him blah blah shinners, blah lah blueshirts!

The point of the post is that due to the way his silence was used, he may not be a member of the INLA, and though one might take this as a tacit admission of the fact, does that constitute evidence enough to deprive someone of liberty. Today it's this man for member ship of th eINLA, tomorrow it could be anyone on this site who makes an enemy of a Garda and finds himself accused of being at gang member (for example).

Originally Posted by The Caped Cod

The point of the post is that due to the way his silence was used, he may not be a member of the INLA, and though one might take this as a tacit admission of the fact, does that constitute evidence enough to deprive someone of liberty. Today it's this man for member ship of th eINLA, tomorrow it could be anyone on this site who makes an enemy of a Garda and finds himself accused of being at gang member (for example).

Well, you might find that his conviction was based both on his refusal to account for his whereabouts/actions (his silence) plus the word of a Garda Superintendent and the fact that he was found with Garda uniforms/paraphernalia in his vehicle. It's not the individual aspects but all of them taken as a whole.

Originally Posted by The Caped Cod

The point of the post is that due to the way his silence was used, he may not be a member of the INLA, and though one might take this as a tacit admission of the fact, does that constitute evidence enough to deprive someone of liberty. Today it's this man for member ship of th eINLA, tomorrow it could be anyone on this site who makes an enemy of a Garda and finds himself accused of being at gang member (for example).

If I remember correctly, inferences from silence in these circumstances are not sufficient by themselves to secure a conviction. There has to be other evidence

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"]YouTube - Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1[/ame]. A top defence attorney in the states argues that you should never talk to cops.

I know laws are doubtless different there but how much of it could be applied to our jurisdiction?