failure

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

Exactly!