Over the past year or so I've seen this posted on various feeds. It's a 45 min lecture by a law professor/defense attorney, where he says, in essence, people should never, ever talk to the police about anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

What do you think? True? False? Nuanced?

I'm not able to watch that because I don't have any sound on my PC.

Certainly I don't trust the police though. I'm not sure how I'd react if I were ever in a situation where I was required to be interviewed by the police but I'd definitely be wary and ideally I'd like the whole thing recorded. The police in my country at least have proven time and again that their account of events cannot be trusted. They recently fitted up a serving cabinet minister. If a police officer will try that then they'll be willing to do anything to me.

I should point out that it's not all an attorney talking: he's got the first 25 minutes, and a cop has the last 20. Set up as a kind of point/counterpoint, but they essentially agree.

What's their point ?

I did not watch the video but it is never advisable to talk to the police when a person is a possible suspect. Statements from defensants often can be used with devastating effect at trial. So why shouldn't a person talk to the police if they are innocent? What is being gained by doing so? If there is circumstantial evidence against the person, the police may elicit inconsistencies, statements that point towards guilt, etc. that would make it more likely a person is charged. An attorney on a suspect's behalf can always transmit evidence to the police showing the person's innocence. But it is risky talking to the police directly. As for the idea that the police will focus on a suspect if they get a lawyer and refuse to talk to the police, the reality is that the police are not going to forward with a case unless they have enough evidence to prove their case. And the chance that they will go forward with the case goes up when an unrepresented defendant talks to the police.
Of course, sometimes people talk to the police and they are cleared. But it is far safer as a general rule to not say anything.

In England & Wales, we have a key difference in our analog to the 'Miranda' declaration:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence".

Northern Ireland also has differences with the Right to Silence.

As a result, the advice given is not quite applicable to Sass and I.

Right. There was an immigration case here some years ago where a key issue was whether a conviction was admissible for deportation purposes when the British judge used in part the fact that the defendant refused to testify (if I recall the underlying facts concerned a well-known case where a couple of British soldiers got lost and were killed by a mob at an IRA funeral) Your standard would seem to be a bit different than that, but perhaps Northern Ireland has less protection against self-incrimination (and of course this is from recollection, I was not involved with case, so it's certainly possible that I might not have the facts/legal issues right).

freeman3 wrote:Right. There was an immigration case here some years ago where a key issue was whether a conviction was admissible for deportation purposes when the British judge used in part the fact that the defendant refused to testify (if I recall the underlying facts concerned a well-known case where a couple of British soldiers got lost and were killed by a mob at an IRA funeral) Your standard would seem to be a bit different than that, but perhaps Northern Ireland has less protection against self-incrimination (and of course this is from recollection, I was not involved with case, so it's certainly possible that I might not have the facts/legal issues right).

I think it was less about the legal standard than the particular conviction and how safe it was. Sure, he didn't speak at trial, but there was video evidence of his involvement (the incident was filmed).

And, of course, there's a misguided element in America who want to think that a conviction for being part of a mob that attacked and assaulted two men before handing them over to be shot is 'political'.

I did not get intend to get into the politics of it. I thought the case might have been an example where the differences in self-incrimination rights might have been pertinent. However, at this point, I am not even confident about that assertion. I withdraw the example. And I agree that Sass and Dan will have to consult their barrister for advice on when it is prudent to talk to the police...

Hopefully it'll never come to that....