@videokid001 Yes - I agree. The problem is, the police are dishonest and unscrupulous even when not in direct pursuit of a crime. If you were exonerated from whatever they questioned you for, they had NO RIGHT to be collecting DNA, etc, for future reference. Collecting them under threat and false pretenses is exactly the kind of dishonesty that perpetuates the public's distrust in them.
I’d like to know what is your take on interview under caution without arrest or charge.
The situation when they request you come into taped interview but are free to leave at any time........also how can your `handy statement be amended to fit an arrest when someone is claiming common law, declining consent to acts and statues.
I only believe that consenting, contracting, should be only considered when harm loss or damage to another human has been done.
@catspawo6 Some excellent questions catspaw06, thanks for your contribution.
I did intend the above statement to be used while interviewed under caution - it's true that by the time the interview begins you might be asked if you want to see the Duty Solicitor/have access to writing materials etc. but DNA/Fingerpring samples can only be collected legally when you are charged...
@catspawo6 ...To answer your question your line of reasoning seems to be close to the "Freeman on the Land" argument which as I understand it means a person can try to claim that statutory law does not apply to them and they are only bound by common law.
The phrase has no legal significance and no successful defence has been mounted in an English court on this basis, not in the least because the Criminal Justice Act 2003 specifically criminalises common law offences.
@catspawo6 ..If you refuse to answer questions at interview on the basis that you don't believe you're subject to statutory law, inferences can be drawn from your silence.
The Authority of Parliament is supreme. No individual can decide the law does not apply to them. Of course we are free to elect politicians who will introduce laws as needed, or repeal unfair ones and there is nothing to stop a person from campaigning against an unjust law - but not during Police interview!
Also, your advice to admit to crimes is ludicrous. What are you - the moral judge of what is right and wrong? If I was the kind of person who commited crimes, why would I then become this honest person who admitted to them, and if I did, I would be contravening the primary tenet of the far better video that you yourself praised. These issues are FAR too important for you to play amateur counsel, when the cost could be long prison sentences. I think you are grossly irresponsible.
@matbroomfield@matbroomfield Interesting - did you read the disclaimer (headed in uppercase letters) at the beginning of my video? When I say that someone should confess, what I obviously meant was that when someone is clearly guilty of breaking the law, then an early admission will count in their favour (although there is not a substantial benefit in so doing at the Police Station).
As for who I am to decide what is right and wrong - I don't, the law's the law!
@vlad1m1r If you post a disclaimer saying "The information I am giving below is useless" then you might as well not give the info, rather risk misleading the illiterate. The excellent video you cited makes it clear that speaking to the police is NEVER a good idea. Save your confessions for court. If 85% of convictions occur as a result of self incrimination or confession, then why add to that?
@matbroomfield Quite simply because American law provides a Constitutional right to avoid self incrimination. We do not have this in the UK and failure to account for being in a particular place at a given time, or for having an item in your possession can lead to adverse inferences being drawn at trial.
If you read the statement I prepared, you will see that it is simply a reiteration of a person's rights and a refusal to answer questions.
I found your previous advice completely ridiculous. In it, you recommended that people accepted on numerous occasions that inference could be drawn from their silence, without attemptibg to explain their silence. This seems tantamount to accepting guilt. Furthermore, the ridiculous length and technicality of your statement makes it impossible that anybody would ever remember it. Personally, I feel that the traditional "no comment" provides a far less confrontational and inferential declaration.
@matbroomfield Matt, in saying that they understand that adverse inferences may be drawn from their silence, they are simply reiterating that they have understood their caution.
My research for this video was partly based on the advice of Ed Cape, who wrote a paper named "Police Station Advice on Silence" on behalf of the Law Society - he also says that a client should be cautioned that silence may strengthen a weak case against a client...
@vlad1m1r But there is no need to emphasise that you have understood your caution. What benefit does it offer? And yes, in the UK, where we have this preposterous "inference from silence" law, remaining silent MAY strengthen their case, but I stand by Mark Twain when he said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." There's a far greater likelihood of self-incrimination by speaking, than by remaining COMPLETELY silent.
@matbroomfield I see what you mean Matt but given that a pre prepared statement, especially given that it actually says nothing of use to the Police themselves means that the Judge will have no choice but to order the Jury to make no adverse inferences (indeed a self-serving statement of this kind would probably be suppressed by the Prosecution), it's clearly better to do this rather than say nothing at all.
@matbroomfield ...However there is a much greater risk that a suspect will mention something in good faith which the Police can later demonstrate is untrue.
This said, an adverse inference cannot be drawn by a defendant who merely refuses to answer police questions after a pre-prepared statement is read out. The CPS themselves cite R v Knight [2003] in their guidelines on their website - hence my advice to use a written statement rather than just remaining silent.
@vlad1m1r Okay, I will concede to your research on this one, but in what way dopes your pre-prepared statement strengthen the validity of your silence, over merely saying "No comment". Without adding justification for the silence, no matter how elquently you say it, you are still merely saying, "No comment".
@matbroomfield Matt, it is for the reasons I cited in the CPS guidelines. Saying "no comment" in itself runs the risk of adverse inferences be drawn however none can be drawn after having read out a pre prepared statement, even if it's wholly exculpatory.
@vlad1m1r Personally, I have a truly dreadful memory, and I easily get tangled up in conversation, so it would be extremely easy to get me to say things that painted an incorrect picture. Thus, if I ever found myself in that situation, I may make a written statement, which simply expressed that sentiment. A good solicitor or lawyer would hopefully be able to use that honest sentiment to justify my sincere silence.
@matbroomfield ...Further to my last comment, I have placed a link to the CPS guidelines in the info section for this video.
As you will see adverse inferences may be drawn from silence on the basis of a no comment interview in itself. Refusal to answer questions after having read out a statement prevents Section 34 of the The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) applying - with respect I think you need to research into this issue a little more.
@vlad1m1r Undoubtedly I am not conversant in the legalese here, which is why I came to your video in the first place. Perhaps you should have better clarified in what way and to what degree making a statement similar to the one you suggested, bypasses section 34. I find that a heinous piece of legislation, especially in light of the other video you cited, because it essentially forces you to provide information that can be misused against you.
@matbroomfield I couldn't agree with you more Matt that this is an erosion of our rights- sad to say our civil liberties are being eroded on a daily basis. Naturally you and I cannot change the law to suit ourselves but we can explain what a person's (limited) rights are while undergoing interview. The reason I prepared a statement was for people who don't have the time to pore over legal precedents as I have done!
@matbroomfield I have managed to find an online version of the paper I mentioned by Prof. Ed Cape - link in the "info" section. I usually cite my sources when making the video, many apologies.
Probably the most important thing the Professor points out is that contrary to popular belief it's not an automatic defence to say you only remained silent because your Solicitor advised you to. The Judge and Jury need to be satisfied it was reasonable for you to do so.
@vlad1m1r Thanks for the link. The trouble with "reasonable" is that it is utterly open to interpretation. In light of that other video, it is reasonable to remain silent simply because ANY comment, whether you are innocent or otherwise, can be used against you. Thus, I contend that it is unwise to speak to the police under any circumstances - even simply as a witness.
@matbroomfield I think you'd certainly be hard pressed to find a situation where you'd be grateful you did talk to the Police!
It's true to say that pretty much any statement made innocently off the cuff could appear suspicious. There's a difference between this though and reading out a pre prepared statement like the one in my video. It simply reminds the Police you're aware of your rights and as you said yourself, you tell them precisely nothing of any use.
@matbroomfield In a nutshell, it is a question of weighing the small theoretical risk of remaining silent against the larger very real one of speaking to the Police at interview under caution and inadvertantly incriminating yourself.
IF you don't mention something at interview and IF the CPS decide there's enough evidence to charge you and IF the case goes to court, IF you plead Not Guilty and IF you then rely on a fact you could have mentioned before it MAY harm your defence.
@matbroomfield I agree with you on the ANY comment. I looked into the law change on making no comment being/could be used against us, and find it would be advisable to make a court fully aware that it was done to preserve innocence for when in court. Where the facts can be and should only be heard there 1st hand with no pre judged bias
@catspawo6 Yes, you make that case well. I simply doubt the integrity of the police not to distort my words. When conviction can be gained not based upon the truth, but upon doubts that they create, and verbal sophistry, even the innocent truly have nothing to gain by talking to the police. The lawyers have created a rod for the police's backs, and all society is paying the price.
@videokid001 Yes - I agree. The problem is, the police are dishonest and unscrupulous even when not in direct pursuit of a crime. If you were exonerated from whatever they questioned you for, they had NO RIGHT to be collecting DNA, etc, for future reference. Collecting them under threat and false pretenses is exactly the kind of dishonesty that perpetuates the public's distrust in them.
matbroomfield 3 weeks ago
I’d like to know what is your take on interview under caution without arrest or charge.
The situation when they request you come into taped interview but are free to leave at any time........also how can your `handy statement be amended to fit an arrest when someone is claiming common law, declining consent to acts and statues.
I only believe that consenting, contracting, should be only considered when harm loss or damage to another human has been done.
catspawo6 3 weeks ago
@catspawo6 Some excellent questions catspaw06, thanks for your contribution.
I did intend the above statement to be used while interviewed under caution - it's true that by the time the interview begins you might be asked if you want to see the Duty Solicitor/have access to writing materials etc. but DNA/Fingerpring samples can only be collected legally when you are charged...
vlad1m1r 3 weeks ago
@catspawo6 ...To answer your question your line of reasoning seems to be close to the "Freeman on the Land" argument which as I understand it means a person can try to claim that statutory law does not apply to them and they are only bound by common law.
The phrase has no legal significance and no successful defence has been mounted in an English court on this basis, not in the least because the Criminal Justice Act 2003 specifically criminalises common law offences.
vlad1m1r 3 weeks ago
@catspawo6 ..If you refuse to answer questions at interview on the basis that you don't believe you're subject to statutory law, inferences can be drawn from your silence.
The Authority of Parliament is supreme. No individual can decide the law does not apply to them. Of course we are free to elect politicians who will introduce laws as needed, or repeal unfair ones and there is nothing to stop a person from campaigning against an unjust law - but not during Police interview!
vlad1m1r 3 weeks ago
Also, your advice to admit to crimes is ludicrous. What are you - the moral judge of what is right and wrong? If I was the kind of person who commited crimes, why would I then become this honest person who admitted to them, and if I did, I would be contravening the primary tenet of the far better video that you yourself praised. These issues are FAR too important for you to play amateur counsel, when the cost could be long prison sentences. I think you are grossly irresponsible.
matbroomfield 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@matbroomfield @matbroomfield Interesting - did you read the disclaimer (headed in uppercase letters) at the beginning of my video? When I say that someone should confess, what I obviously meant was that when someone is clearly guilty of breaking the law, then an early admission will count in their favour (although there is not a substantial benefit in so doing at the Police Station).
As for who I am to decide what is right and wrong - I don't, the law's the law!
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@vlad1m1r If you post a disclaimer saying "The information I am giving below is useless" then you might as well not give the info, rather risk misleading the illiterate. The excellent video you cited makes it clear that speaking to the police is NEVER a good idea. Save your confessions for court. If 85% of convictions occur as a result of self incrimination or confession, then why add to that?
matbroomfield 1 month ago
@matbroomfield Quite simply because American law provides a Constitutional right to avoid self incrimination. We do not have this in the UK and failure to account for being in a particular place at a given time, or for having an item in your possession can lead to adverse inferences being drawn at trial.
If you read the statement I prepared, you will see that it is simply a reiteration of a person's rights and a refusal to answer questions.
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
I found your previous advice completely ridiculous. In it, you recommended that people accepted on numerous occasions that inference could be drawn from their silence, without attemptibg to explain their silence. This seems tantamount to accepting guilt. Furthermore, the ridiculous length and technicality of your statement makes it impossible that anybody would ever remember it. Personally, I feel that the traditional "no comment" provides a far less confrontational and inferential declaration.
matbroomfield 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@matbroomfield Matt, in saying that they understand that adverse inferences may be drawn from their silence, they are simply reiterating that they have understood their caution.
My research for this video was partly based on the advice of Ed Cape, who wrote a paper named "Police Station Advice on Silence" on behalf of the Law Society - he also says that a client should be cautioned that silence may strengthen a weak case against a client...
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@vlad1m1r But there is no need to emphasise that you have understood your caution. What benefit does it offer? And yes, in the UK, where we have this preposterous "inference from silence" law, remaining silent MAY strengthen their case, but I stand by Mark Twain when he said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." There's a far greater likelihood of self-incrimination by speaking, than by remaining COMPLETELY silent.
matbroomfield 1 month ago
@matbroomfield I see what you mean Matt but given that a pre prepared statement, especially given that it actually says nothing of use to the Police themselves means that the Judge will have no choice but to order the Jury to make no adverse inferences (indeed a self-serving statement of this kind would probably be suppressed by the Prosecution), it's clearly better to do this rather than say nothing at all.
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@matbroomfield ...However there is a much greater risk that a suspect will mention something in good faith which the Police can later demonstrate is untrue.
This said, an adverse inference cannot be drawn by a defendant who merely refuses to answer police questions after a pre-prepared statement is read out. The CPS themselves cite R v Knight [2003] in their guidelines on their website - hence my advice to use a written statement rather than just remaining silent.
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@vlad1m1r Okay, I will concede to your research on this one, but in what way dopes your pre-prepared statement strengthen the validity of your silence, over merely saying "No comment". Without adding justification for the silence, no matter how elquently you say it, you are still merely saying, "No comment".
matbroomfield 1 month ago
@matbroomfield Matt, it is for the reasons I cited in the CPS guidelines. Saying "no comment" in itself runs the risk of adverse inferences be drawn however none can be drawn after having read out a pre prepared statement, even if it's wholly exculpatory.
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@vlad1m1r Personally, I have a truly dreadful memory, and I easily get tangled up in conversation, so it would be extremely easy to get me to say things that painted an incorrect picture. Thus, if I ever found myself in that situation, I may make a written statement, which simply expressed that sentiment. A good solicitor or lawyer would hopefully be able to use that honest sentiment to justify my sincere silence.
matbroomfield 1 month ago
@matbroomfield ...Further to my last comment, I have placed a link to the CPS guidelines in the info section for this video.
As you will see adverse inferences may be drawn from silence on the basis of a no comment interview in itself. Refusal to answer questions after having read out a statement prevents Section 34 of the The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) applying - with respect I think you need to research into this issue a little more.
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@vlad1m1r Undoubtedly I am not conversant in the legalese here, which is why I came to your video in the first place. Perhaps you should have better clarified in what way and to what degree making a statement similar to the one you suggested, bypasses section 34. I find that a heinous piece of legislation, especially in light of the other video you cited, because it essentially forces you to provide information that can be misused against you.
matbroomfield 1 month ago
@matbroomfield I couldn't agree with you more Matt that this is an erosion of our rights- sad to say our civil liberties are being eroded on a daily basis. Naturally you and I cannot change the law to suit ourselves but we can explain what a person's (limited) rights are while undergoing interview. The reason I prepared a statement was for people who don't have the time to pore over legal precedents as I have done!
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@matbroomfield I have managed to find an online version of the paper I mentioned by Prof. Ed Cape - link in the "info" section. I usually cite my sources when making the video, many apologies.
Probably the most important thing the Professor points out is that contrary to popular belief it's not an automatic defence to say you only remained silent because your Solicitor advised you to. The Judge and Jury need to be satisfied it was reasonable for you to do so.
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@vlad1m1r Thanks for the link. The trouble with "reasonable" is that it is utterly open to interpretation. In light of that other video, it is reasonable to remain silent simply because ANY comment, whether you are innocent or otherwise, can be used against you. Thus, I contend that it is unwise to speak to the police under any circumstances - even simply as a witness.
matbroomfield 1 month ago
@matbroomfield I think you'd certainly be hard pressed to find a situation where you'd be grateful you did talk to the Police!
It's true to say that pretty much any statement made innocently off the cuff could appear suspicious. There's a difference between this though and reading out a pre prepared statement like the one in my video. It simply reminds the Police you're aware of your rights and as you said yourself, you tell them precisely nothing of any use.
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@matbroomfield In a nutshell, it is a question of weighing the small theoretical risk of remaining silent against the larger very real one of speaking to the Police at interview under caution and inadvertantly incriminating yourself.
IF you don't mention something at interview and IF the CPS decide there's enough evidence to charge you and IF the case goes to court, IF you plead Not Guilty and IF you then rely on a fact you could have mentioned before it MAY harm your defence.
vlad1m1r 1 month ago
@vlad1m1r Yes, you summarise the situation perfectly here. I agree wholeheartedly. Good to debate with you!
matbroomfield 1 month ago
@matbroomfield I agree with you on the ANY comment. I looked into the law change on making no comment being/could be used against us, and find it would be advisable to make a court fully aware that it was done to preserve innocence for when in court. Where the facts can be and should only be heard there 1st hand with no pre judged bias
catspawo6 3 weeks ago
@catspawo6 Yes, you make that case well. I simply doubt the integrity of the police not to distort my words. When conviction can be gained not based upon the truth, but upon doubts that they create, and verbal sophistry, even the innocent truly have nothing to gain by talking to the police. The lawyers have created a rod for the police's backs, and all society is paying the price.
matbroomfield 3 weeks ago
@videokid001 enit mate, same.
Is there anyway i can get my details removed from their property?
aidan21 7 months ago