> I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against
Technically this is true. If you make a statement to the police, then that statement can be used as evidence at trial (both against you and in your defence). If you don’t make a statement, then the only way to get your testimony in front of the jury (should that be necessary), is to take the stand, where you will be subjected to cross examination. A process where you (probably not a lawyer) will have to argue with a lawyer who will be doing their best to make you trip over every single thing you say, in front of a jury, for a number of hours.
So while it does potentially have a benefit, it’s still always a bad idea, because you’ll want to see the discovery before you say anything at all.
In one of my stints of jury service, the accused had heavily exercised his right to silence over a lengthy period. At the subsequent trial the judge made a point of instructing the jury we must infer nothing at all from his silence and judge solely on the facts of the case, as presented in court.
I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against, and how, but it is absolutely nowhere near obstruction of justice or contempt of court.
Such as if you had an alibi that you try to use as a defence in court but you didn't mention it when questioned by Police in the first place. This can cast doubt on the alibi - presumably because people will think you made it up later and if it was true you should have been able to say so in the first place.
> it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
"it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"
"In every other country (UK), it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence."
I would regard these as features rather than bugs.
As far as I know, the major change came in the 90s in the form of "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". In other words, the court can draw conclusions about something you initially refused to comment on, but then later answered as part of your defence.
From that page: “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
IANAL, but my understanding is that if the question is "What's your Facebook password?" and you refuse to give it, then the prosecution can mention this fact in a trial. But this by itself is not a problem for you. However, if you claim in court that there's evidence in your Facebook feed that shows you did not commit the crime (e.g. photos of you elsewhere at the time), then the jury might hold it against you that you didn't allow the police to access your Facebook account at the time, and they might then question the strength of this evidence.
Not only that, but it specifically says against you. Note that it doesn't say anything you say can and will be used as evidence in a court of law.
A police officer can testify to statements you made or actions you took that will incriminate you. But if the defense counsel asks them to testify to similar statements or actions that will exonerate you, the prosecution will object to it as hearsay, and it will be sustained. You'll need to take the stand to make such claims, which opens you up to cross-examination.
By making public statements, you're talking straight to the prosecutor/opposing attorney. As the warning says: Anything you say may be used against you in court.
Yes I know - but the problem with that is that when you get to court and try to defend yourself, your defence will be weaker because you didn't answer questions at the time. It's bad advice.
Because it’s better to let the criminal lie to investigators before you go nuclear on them, it strengthens the case if you can document intent to mislead and lie, and removes the opportunity for lawyerly “this is all a big misunderstanding that could have been avoided if they just asked, your honor!” defenses.
> You lose, you piss off the judge, and any jury will most likely assume you have something to hide that is even worse than a guilty verdict.
Also note that in a civil trial you do not have a right against self-incrimination. You can refuse to testify but your opponent can use your lack of testimony against you.
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
In Scotland it's different:
"You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"[1]
In the UK, adverse inference may be drawn from silence in certain circumstances. In fact, they will usually say:
> You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
> Interestingly, people usually don't want to be deposed when they have something to hide.
You don't need to have done anything wrong to fear a deposition. Go to youtube and watch any number of "do not talk to police" lectures. An innocent person can end up trapping themselves in a lie, or bow to pressure. Or you may say something that you think is harmless but in fact damns you. Depositions should be avoided wherever possible.
That decision does not say what the commenter thinks it says. It says that if you start silent and then start talking, your earlier silence does not prevent your later statements from being used as evidence. It does not say that you can’t continue to remain silent or refuse to testify against yourself.
The negative inference comes from the fact that you can't push an affirmative defence at trial that you haven't hinted at during questioning.
So, if you are arrested for beating up X, and you invoke your right to silence, THEN at trial you put forward a defence of "I wasn't there!" without any substantive evidence to back it up, the prosecutor can say "well, look, if there was an alibi, why didn't you tell the police about it?" The judge is supposed to then instruct the jury that they can draw an inference as to your honesty on the grounds you didn't bring it up during police interview.
The legislation that brings that into force are ss34-39 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Technically this is true. If you make a statement to the police, then that statement can be used as evidence at trial (both against you and in your defence). If you don’t make a statement, then the only way to get your testimony in front of the jury (should that be necessary), is to take the stand, where you will be subjected to cross examination. A process where you (probably not a lawyer) will have to argue with a lawyer who will be doing their best to make you trip over every single thing you say, in front of a jury, for a number of hours.
So while it does potentially have a benefit, it’s still always a bad idea, because you’ll want to see the discovery before you say anything at all.
reply