RE: Handy Statement if arrested in UK

In response to my original video on your right if arrested in the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu22p6Gbnb8


DISCLAIMER: I am not a legal professional. The information contained in this video is provided as is without warranty of suitability or purpose of any kind. You follow any of the advice here at your own risk. Please be aware that the law may be different to what is described here, I advise you to check the Home Office website for clarification.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and accompanying Codes of Practice:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-c...

Don't talk to Cops video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Adverse Inferences : Legal Guidelines (Crown Prosecution Service)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/#a11

Police Station Advice : Advising on Silence (Professor Ed Cape):

http://tinyurl.com/6pqrjve

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• right
• to
• silence
• police
• arrest
• uk
• cops
• habeus
• corpus
• human
• rights
• terrorism

[catspawo6]

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.

[vlad1m1r]

@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]

@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]

@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!

[matbroomfield]

@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]

@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.

[catspawo6]

@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

[matbroomfield]

@vlad1m1r Yes, you summarise the situation perfectly here. I agree wholeheartedly. Good to debate with you!

[vlad1m1r]

@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]

@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.