Register to Comment
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1
    Derrida Derrida is offline
    Derrida's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    432

    Do we have a right to silence or not ?

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    corelli corelli is offline
    corelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,631

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    cHeal cHeal is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,587

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    orbit orbit is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,738

    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    Supermanpolitician Supermanpolitician is offline
    Supermanpolitician's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,343

    Quote Originally Posted by Derrida View Post
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    Stendec Stendec is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    769

    Quote Originally Posted by Derrida View Post
    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!!!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    The Caped Cod The Caped Cod is offline
    The Caped Cod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10,889

    Quote Originally Posted by Stendec View Post
    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).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    corelli corelli is offline
    corelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    17,631

    Quote Originally Posted by The Caped Cod View Post
    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.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    borntorum borntorum is offline
    borntorum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    13,677

    Quote Originally Posted by The Caped Cod View Post
    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
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    ballot stuffer ballot stuffer is offline
    ballot stuffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,014

    [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?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment