Tweet
Content removed
-
-
This is a tricky one but I suppose the correct answer is that his lawyer knows the facts better than us so his advice should be followed.
The downside of a no-comment interview is that should it go to trial, no matter what the barrister or judge says, the juries instinct will be to equate 'no comment' responses with guilt.
The upside is that a no comment interview is less likely to go to trial, unless there is other evidence, as the commonest mistake of a interviewee is to say too much and provide the police with ammunition!'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger' -
Hub was advised to give a no comment interview. Although it has lead, almost inevitably, to a trial it also meant that there has been no opportunity for FA to change her stories or for plod to correct their mistakes. Everything will be presented in Court on the day for cross examination.Originally posted by notmyname View Post
At least it means we haven't had too much waiting, just 6 months but then we are a good few grand down on our savings, money for our retirement that can never be recouped.
At the time of interview it is unlikely you will even know fully what has been alleged and you certainly won't see the statements.
At the initial plea hearing the magistrate i/c was a bit 'off' with hub until he established it had been a no comment interview and then he actually seemed more respectful so I don't think it goes against you.Comment
-
Lol, almost the opposite of what I just wrote but should stress that hub is being tried in magistrates (still could be a custodial sentence) and juries may well be different. Sol said many 'no comments' go to trial but then it is dealt with and over.Originally posted by Casehardened View PostComment
-
Of course magistrates are legally trained so will appreciate that if a defendant is advised to make a no-comment interview by his lawyer then this must not be adversely taken into account when entering judgement.Originally posted by is there justice? View Post
Juries are composed of lay people and so, for better or worse, will go with 'gut-feeling'
Edited to add 'adversely' i.e. they mustn't assume that 'no-comment' equates to guiltLast edited by Casehardened; 2 August 2013, 01:09 PM.'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger'Comment
-
If his lawyer has advised a no comment interview, I would go with that, I believe there are specific instances where it is appropriate.
'We' were badly advised by the duty sol, there was no complaint against him (it was someone close to her who made the allegation) and no evidence, forensic or otherwise. He was arrested with attepted rape. Bewildered and terrifed, after spending 6 hours in a cell, in his statement he said he had consensual kissing and petting with the girl and because she 'couldn't remember' he was charged with sexual assault on what he'd said. (found NG in court btw)
Having since discussed it with a different lawyers and his barrister, this is one of the cases where a no-comment interview would have been justified.
If in doubt, I would ask your solicitor to explain his reasoning. Hope this helpsComment
-
PS Make sure he's got his sol with him. If the sol's not going to be there, maybe that's why he's advised a no comment interview.Comment
-
I would advise that IF his solicitor is giving the instruction to answer questions with 'no comment' then he does so. Nothing can be inferred at trial from him acting on legal advice. However, if he is not acting on legal advice and goes 'no comment' then it would be a different story.
A positive is that he will be able to construct a defence around what is alleged and written in the statements against him.
A negative is that he will need to take the stand at trial should it go that far as he will then need to relay his version of events to the jury. The 'no comment' could well be mentioned at trial but it would be made clear that this was on 'legal advice' rather than personal choice. The jury of course can arrive at whatever conclusions that they want to take from that........
On legal advice - YES
Without legal advice - NOWow... A signature option!Comment
-
thanks
Content removedComment
-
Hi - my son was advised to give a no comment interview but the solicitor also wrote a statement which we all signed and dated (I'm sorry but I can't remember the legal name) which could be presented if and when the case went to court. There was a specific reason for this which, again, I can't remember. Sorry!! But perhaps yours can do the same. Good luck.Comment
-
I was advised to give a no comment interview to the Police, and now I really wish I had listened, I thought giving a no comment interview would imply I did not have reasonable answers for the questions,
so being innocent with nothing to hide I went against that advice and answered the questions put to me, all the Police do then is go back to the people and tell them your version of events and they change dates times etc to suit them self, so in effect you end up corroborating the FA`s version of events, and in court it was mentioned I attended the interview voluntarily but not that I opted to give a comment interview.
SparksComment
-
Be helpful to the police - Tell the truth and nothing bad can happen to you. WRONG - What a terrible state of affairs!
Comment
-
That's awful!! I too was all for my son just telling the truth. I've always told my kids if you tell the truth no harm will come to you. It would seem that no longer is true!Comment
-
don't know what's happening
Content removedComment
-
The answer is simple they had nothing, and hoped he would give them a way to go forward,Comment
Comment