failure

But there are times when the lawyers/barristers/etc. cannot possibly know about that. Only the one being questioned, at times, may know whether or not a particular question with its honest and full answer might lead to self-incrimination. For example:

Lawyer: "Where were you at 10PM, last night?" Respondant: "I invoke the 5th Amendment."

Certainly, it is possible in this case that the lawyer may have no idea at all that the answer might tend to incriminate the person, unless they were already informed about the possibility. And even then, they might not know for sure until they ask. But as bad as this example may be, there must certainly be times when only the person being questioned really understands the fuller implications and possibilities in answering honestly, in terms of self-incrimination, and therefore would need to speak out for themselves on it.

In those cases, how would a person respond under British law? I'm curious.

Jon

Same way as under US law: Lie.

Interestingly, you can't be penalized for perjury when you lie in your own defense.

John

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jonathan Kirwan wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Fri,

If he was up to no good, he'd lie and hope to get away with it. But if the lawyer then went on to say, 'Were you not robbing the bank in the High Street?', then that question is inadmissible.

If only that was also true about taxes ! ;-)

Graham

You promised never to mention the kangaroo.

They were probably hoping we'd leave if they voted for what we wanted.

What kangaroo?

Nonsense. Once you've broken one law, the rest don't matter.

Unless that self-incrimination includes "give me the key to your vault (or files)" or "give me a sampple of your DNA".

Does "Martha Stewart" ring a bell? What about "William Jefforson Clinton"?

They weren't on trial at the time.

John

I read in sci.electronics.design that keith wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Sat, 1 Oct 2005:

That's not about the situation in a court. Whether it's right to create an absolute offence of refusing to provide **the police** with evidence is quite another matter.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Sat, 1 Oct 2005:

So did we! But we can't all the while there are terrorist attacks every day. Or do you think we should leave the 8 million to the revenge of the Barthites and jihadists?

Ah, so you wait until you're on the stand to lie? Perhaps that's because if you lie and are acquited it's tough to prove it was a lie (reasonable doubt, double jeopardy and all that). If you lie and are convicted anyway, who cares.

BTW, WJC's lie was to a grand jury. Martha should have just shut up.

You are not required to answer questions from the police either (but cannot lie - other threadlet)), but must furnish them with evidence of your guilt. Kinda strange, no?

I don't allow anyone on my right, not even my pooka. ;-)

I read in sci.electronics.design that keith wrote (in ) about 'failure', on Sat, 1 Oct 2005:

The whole thing was a total farce. Consenting adults in private. Who cares, other than the parties immediately involved? Or, who SHOULDN'T care, but pretend to, and actually only have prurient curiosity?

Exactly. Quite illogical, Jim. I can see another 400 articles on that theme coming up!

The context was a sexual harassment suit, which involved non-consenting adults.

John