ARmy Rumour SErvice

In response to MrPVRd earlier about keeping quiet when questioned, just got this through at work today...

A: Laws LJ, Mitting J and Judge Rivlin QC: 29 July 2003

Where a suspect refused to answer police questions under caution but instead disclosed his full defence on the facts in a prepared statement which was wholly consistent with his defence advanced subsequently at trial, a jury was not entitled to draw adverse inferences under s 34(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 from the failure to answer police questions.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held when allowing an appeal by Mr Philip Knight against his conviction on 1 May 2002 in the Crown Court at Portsmouth (Judge Hughes QC and a jury) for two offences of indecent assault on a female.

LAWS LJ, giving the reserved judgment of the court, said that at the beginning of his interview with police, the defendant's solicitor read out a prepared statement giving an account wholly consistent with his testimony as given later at trial. He declined to answer any questions in interview on his solicitor's advice, stating at trial that he did so because he was worried about getting confused and answering police questions incorrectly. The judge directed the jury that they might draw the adverse inference from the defendant's silence that he wished to prevent his account being scrutinised by police questioning because he believed that it would not stand up to it. His Lordship stated that s 34(1)(a) of the 1994 Act permitted the drawing of adverse inferences from a suspect's failure to mention when questioned under caution, any fact, which in the circumstances he could reasonably have been expected to mention and which he relied on in his defence. The purpose of that provision was to procure the early disclosure of a suspect's account and not the scrutiny and testing of it by police in interview. Had the latter been intended Parliament would have used significantly different language, as it was a significantly greater intrusion into a suspect's general right to silence than the requirement to disclose his factual defence. There could be no adverse inference here as the defendant gave his full account in the statement, mentioning all the facts he later relied on and did not depart from that in the witness box. The fact that he did not mention the facts specifically in response to police questions was immaterial. The judge's direction rendered the conviction unsafe and accordingly the appeal would be allowed and the conviction quashed. His Lordship further observed that a prepared statement did not of itself give automatic immunity against adverse inferences under s 34. It might be incomplete in comparison with the account given at trial or in some respects inconsistent with it. The fact that a solicitor had provided no reasons or bad reasons as to why the accused should stay silent did not necessarily mean that an adverse inference should be drawn, as the defendant might be distinctly weak or vulnerable so that it was not reasonable to expect him to give an account to the police. It was a matter for the jury. R v Howell [2003] EWCA Crim 1; [2003] Crim LR 405, which set out the general approach to be taken under s 34 when a suspect refused to answer questions put to him by police in interview, remained good law.


I think it means you can keep quiet in the PACE interview ('for the benefit of the tape....') as long as you read out your statement, it fits with the facts, and you only rely on that when it comes to the magistrate or the jury.

Return of the right to silence?

This from todays edition of the Torygraph:

Boost for victims who fight back
By Andrew Sparrow and John Steele
(Filed: 06/12/2004)

David Blunkett was said yesterday to be open to a review of the law on using force against intruders, following the announcement of a Tory proposal to give greater legal protection to home-owners who fought back against burglars.

A spokesman for the Home Secretary said the Government was "quite relaxed" about debating the plan, which MPs will asked to vote on in the New Year.

The move comes after Sir John Stevens, the outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner, used an interview with The Telegraph to demand an overhaul of the current law, which allows householders to use "reasonable force" to defend their property.

He said the public were unsure of their rights because the law was ill-defined and people should be allowed to use whatever force necessary against intruders, even if it led to the death of the criminal, without facing the risk of prosecution.

Home-owners, he said, should be prosecuted only in "extreme" cases involving gratuitous violence.

The Tories will be able to bring their legislation to the Commons because Patrick Mercer, the shadow homeland security minister, came first in the ballot for MPs hoping to introduce private member's legislation.

That means his Householder Protection Bill will be guaranteed a second reading well before May, the likely date of the general election.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said yesterday that the Bill would become law unless the Government "actively opposed" it.

However, the Government does not want to be seen as "soft" on law and order in the run-up to the election, and Mr Blunkett's spokesman hinted that Labour would not give the Tories a propaganda victory by voting against their Bill. "The Government has not reached a view on this yet, but we are quite relaxed about a review of this matter," the spokesman said.

He also pointed out that the Home Office was already considering the law in this area as part of its ongoing review of homicide legislation.

The debate was re-ignited by the murder last Monday evening of a City executive, John Monckton, 45, in his Chelsea home. He was knifed to death, and his wife, Homeyra, was seriously injured, after two men - one posing as a postman - forced their way in.

Mrs Monckton, who has two daughters, aged 12 and nine, is recovering in hospital and has given police details of the two men, one black and the other light-skinned and both 5ft 3in to 5ft 6in tall. An e-fit image may be released within the next few days.

Detectives believe the pair may be known to police. They hope forensic traces, such as fingerprints, around the door and hallway area of the house, in Upper Cheyne Row, Chelsea, will yield matches to details on police records.

They also hope to get DNA evidence. A trail of blood leading from the house raises the possibility that one of the men who launched the "ferocious" attack on the Moncktons, as their nine-year-old was in a room nearby, may have been injured himself.

Seems like King Cnut-Blunkwit can 'see' which way the tide is running, so he's spinning his way out before his toes get wet.
However, I get the feeling that they will hang any review on what Sir John Stevens said, ie: 'Home owners will be prosecuted only in "extreme cases" and where "gratuitous violence" is used'.
Given this it may well indicate that nothing much will change. The CPS will still decide what is an 'extreme case' or what constitutes 'gratuitous violence' and the prosecution will go ahead as normal, regardless of the fact that the homeowner has been placed in this situation by the actions of the deceased goblin.

Originally Posted by Greengrass

My understanding is that you may use reasonable force and be able to justify what you did in court. This is open to interpretation however but as a rule of thumb if you use a weapon then you must justify why it was there. Pulling out you .44 magnum dirty Harry style while morally justified would scupper you in that you could not explain why you had a illegal weapon. The same would go for a base ball bat by the door difficult to convince a jury that it was there just in case you got that Major league call up. You best bet is a walking stick mine is solid oak 5 foot long and tipped at the end with metal getting it in the grid will seriously urine off whoever decided to pinch my stereo and its presence it totally innocent by my front door

Ah yes, but the VR cyphered steel toothpick (http://www.wilkinson-swords.co.uk/uk...artillery.html) hanging on the study wall has a blade "32 1/2 inches long by 1 1/8 inches wide". Since my regiment has the freedom of the city where I live I can carry it around in public. So no-ones going to complain if its out of its scabbard in the house are they...?

Isn't there usually some clause in the LOAC ITD about being a soldier bringing with it responsibilities beyond those of other citizens but also extra rights - specifically the right to bear arms?

As the current law stands, Maculy Culkin would be sent down for at least 5 years.
Frankly that's ridiculous, he should be in for at least 20. All those poor burglars wanted was revenge the 2nd time.

To be fair the law does need the opportunity to prosecute if someone really kicks the arrse out of it or get's it wrong.

One would hope that common sense will prevail however. If some tooled up scrote has broken into some ones house then it should be taken as read that said scrote forfits any rights whatsoever.

At least it seems that the powers that be are now making the right noises...and about bl***y time too.

Open season is hereby declared, keep that shotgun within handy reach!

Don't forget:

Copper: How come you had the shotgun within handy reach Mr Gunner? Why wasn't it locked up?

Mr Gunner: I was cleaning it.

Copper: At 3.30 in the morning sir?

Mr G: Yep.

Cop: Well that's ok then sir. You mind how you go.

NOT to be confused with:

Copper: How come you had the shotgun within handy reach Mr Gunner? Why wasn't it locked up?

Mr Gunner: I was waiting behind the door with one up the spout, praying for some chav to come in so I could waste him. I am a paranoid Daily Mail reader and want to killlllll!

Copper: oh dearie dearie me Sir.

You could have something along the lines of "I'm going to touch you now" which makes it perfectly legal,
suchas
"On the count of five, I'm going to redecorate my living room with anything that happens to be in the way of mr. boom-stick. FIVE!"

From the Gruaniad:

The Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in an interview, said that existing legislation is sufficient to uphold the right of householders to deal with burglars.

"We must protect victims and law-abiding citizens. But we have to recognise that others have some rights as well. They don't lose all rights because they're engaged in criminal conduct."

Lord Goldsmith did not elaborate on the exact contours of the rights of burglars. It might be instructive to see him, and other New Labor notables, operationally express their views on that topic if they awakened to find burglars in their homes.

"Attorney General Defends Burglars' Rights" by Martin Bright. 12 December 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...372154,00.html