Comments by "Tony L" (@tlangdon12) on "Fifth Amendment Rights | The Right to Silence - USA and UK | BlackBeltBarrister" video.

  1. The police can't provide evidence to the court that suggests you did NOT commit a crime. Only you (or your defence attorney) can do this. The police might have a lot of evidence that you did not commit a crime; while they can share this with the prosecution, and the prosecution will use it decide whether to prosecute you, the prosecution will only send evidence to the court that suggests you DID commit the crime. You (or your defence attorney) has to submit the evidence that you did NOT commit the crime. Via the disclosure process, both parties learn on what basis and evidence the defendant is being prosecuted, and on what basis and evidence the defendant hopes to defend the charges.
    3
  2. @TeflonBilly Correct, BBB is very clear that other evidence is needed.
    2
  3. You should only write any such statement once you have heard all the questions the police want to ask you, and you should really only write such a statement with your solictor and if your solicitor was present when the police asked their questions.
    2
  4. No, in a comparable situtaion in the UK, you would be arrested, but could remain silent until you have had the opportunity of speaking to a solicitor (who should ideally be one that you are paying to represent you), with no adverse inference possibly being taken in court from your silence. It is good advice not to say anything to the police when stopped or arrested, but not saying certain things can escalate the situation rather than defuse it. Giving your name, address and date of birth, producing your driving licence and insurance when stopped driving a car will tend to stop situations escalating (unless you happen to be wanted already), but if the police are searching for someone, any interaction with them is likely to indicate that you are a suspect and refusing to answer questions is probably a good thing.
    1
  5. I don't know for sure, but I tend to agree that the reason that is given on Wikipedia, which is that it is aimed at situations where the defendant refuses to reveal a defence they have at the time they were questioned in order to blind-side the prosecution. I don't think it can be for the reason you suggest becase any alibi or story would tested in court and the witnesses truthfulness tested if the prosecution had a concern about it. That option would always be open to the prosecution, even if the defendant had originally mentioned their defence/alibi/story when questioned.
    1
  6. Furnishing the identify of the driver is not self-incriminating, even if you were the driver. There still has to be evidence that an offence was committed to prosecute you for that offence.
    1
  7. The UK Human Rights Act contains no such right, but I do agree that drawing an adverse reference from some information that you initially withheld but then reveal in court does mean that you have no right not to incriminate yourself. Your defence to the crime you are being prosecuted for could be that you were in another place comitting a different, lesser, crime. If you cannot reveal this information without the likelihood of being prosecuted for the lesser offence, you cannot defend yourself against the more serious charge without incriminating yourself on the lesser charge. You have the choice as to whether to use the defence that you have available, knowing that it is likely to lead to a prosecution, or to remain silent.
    1
  8.  @limmywriter2334  Yes, they can, but the legal advice should have included this fact.
    1
  9. No court can take an adverse inference from something is not said in court. If you remain silent in court, the court does not know what you have not said.
    1