Great utube video here. Long but interesting and informative.



Yes its American but the same basic rules exist in Australia.

I know from personal experience a man accused of murdering two Aboriginal kids at Bowraville NSW has never been convicted of these murders despite a fair bit of evidence indicating he did it. Over twenty years he has never talked to the police. So the main evidence, what he says, has never been able to be used against him.

We don't have to explain to a police officer how fast we are driving. We don't have to explain to a police officer where we were at a certain time. We don't have to explain our relationships to other people or what we think of certain things.

Facebook probably can tell a police officer all this anyway.

Stuthepirate said...
yadayadyada... you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.

Yeh haha. I've watched it before and that sums it up very well.
Still quite an interesting little snippet, and he is rather a good talker.

^^^ very true Stamp.

Yes Moby the video is helpful and informative, but things like this can also misinform. It fails to take into account that in WA for example, you have to disclose who was driving your car at a certain time, give name and address, particulars as Stamp says, all manner of things.


There are so many situations where saying nothing will make it a damn site worse. Like if there is complaint made against you and you saying nothing means the cops only have the other party's side of the story, so you get charged. All you had to do was talk, say what happened and give a valid defence to the charge and you'd be right. Instead, you get charged, get a lawyer at great cost, go to court 2 or 3 times, and eventually when your side of the story comes out in court you get off. Yes you have a right to silence but this blanket advice to never say anything is misleading

Unfortunately things like this are seen and partly digested by young folk who then develop the 'fk the cops' attitude........... and they have no idea why they are arrested when they fail to do something the Police can lawfully demand they do.

I just did a bit of research and in NSW at least the police can ask for your name and address but you are not compelled to give them any identification. It is an offence to give false information so its not in one's interest to give a false name and address.

Besides this you are not compelled to answer any question put to you by the police. However if the police are accusing you of a crime it is not in your interest to explain your actions, especially if you are innocent.

The murder case I'm referring to the accused has not talked to the police for over 20 years and he has never been convicted of the murders.

stamp said...
i can't be bothered paraphrasing so here's the relevant ppra section authorising qld police to insist on your details:

41 Prescribed circumstances for requiring name and address
The prescribed circumstances for requiring a person to state the person's name and address are as follows—

(g) a police officer reasonably believes obtaining the person's name and address is necessary for the administration or enforcement of an Act prescribed under a regulation for this section;


(k) the person is the person in control of a vehicle that is stationary on a road or has been stopped under section 60;

Forget the rest. These two have it.

Chris6791 said...
Everyone is an expert cos they read about it on the net, I guess Youtube trumps a law degree these days? I (accidentally) stumbled across some porn on the net the other day , it hardly makes me Peter North does it?

i don't have a law degree yet, but i'm halfway through one. does that make me a nameless extra in a peter north movie? or a fluffer?

If your not being charged & there's a fair chance you can talk y
the police . But if you have been charged never talk because the police are not judges & anything you say will be misconstrued& used against you so let your legalrepresentitve speakfor you in court

police evidence in the form of confessional statements must be recorded before it can be admitted. the cops carry mobile devices and are required to activate them before any kind of conversation takes place. failing to do so will often end up in an exclusion in court. there are strict procedures that must be followed.

for example: if, on the tape, there is the slightest indication of intimidation, cajoling, promises or threats made by the police the recorded evidence is usually excluded- in the case of threats is must be excluded. same goes if the accused's rights are not properly given and a check made that they have been understood. any confession must be completely voluntary and by the book.

maybe it's different in the u.s. as others have rightly said don't put too much faith in an american discussion. if you need to check the rules our legislation is available to anybody to read at www.austlii.edu.au/

stamp said...
police evidence in the form of confessional statements must be recorded before it can be admitted. the cops carry mobile devices and are required to activate them before any kind of conversation takes place. failing to do so will often end up in an exclusion in court. there are strict procedures that must be followed.

for example: if, on the tape, there is the slightest indication of intimidation, cajoling, promises or threats made by the police the recorded evidence is usually excluded- in the case of threats is must be excluded. same goes if the accused's rights are not properly given and a check made that they have been understood. any confession must be completely voluntary and by the book.

maybe it's different in the u.s. as others have rightly said don't put too much faith in an american discussion. if you need to check the rules our legislation is available to anybody to read at www.austlii.edu.au/

Nice to hear from somebody who actually knows, unlike the usual seabreeze bush lawyers.

Yeah no worries Cisco the cops can do anything they like to gain a confession and it is still admissable.

Lets not forget that it is not torture or waterboarding etc, if they use mind tricks or vigorous lines of questioning to make you talk, all they are doing is getting you to admit what you have done. If the cops are smart enough to gain confessions from GUILTY people is that a bad thing? They are not beating anyone up, people are told their rights and if they then talk what's the biggie?

With the way the law is now (like Stamp says, any error or corrupt behaviour by police means evidence is totally inadmissable) I doubt many folks have been confessing to stuff they didn't do.

One of the many intents of the law is to protect the innocent etc, there nothing in there that says it has to protect the stupid, especially from themselves. This video also has some relevence and sums it up nicely in 4 minutes

Chris6791 said...
Everyone is an expert cos they read about it on the net, I guess Youtube trumps a law degree these days? I (accidentally) stumbled across some porn on the net the other day , it hardly makes me Peter North does it?

yeah right I believe you chris

When investigating a crime, the police may question anyone.

It is a fundamental principle of our criminal law that a person may refuse to answer all questions put to him or her. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this rule requiring that a person answer certain questions. This can apply whether they are a suspect or not.

It is advisable to co-operate with the police and be polite, answering those questions which must be answered, but to refrain from answering any other questions.

If there is anything a suspect wants to tell the police, such as an alibi, they should see a lawyer so that the lawyer can help provide the information to the police. It is advisable to give that information to police as soon as possible so that it does not look like it has been invented later.

Before answering any questions a person should seek immediate legal advice. However one must answer certain questions in the following situations:

where police reasonably suspect a person has committed or is about to commit an offence (giving name and address)
drivers of motor vehicles
proof of age of people on licensed and regulated premises
to customs officers regarding drugs
to avoid assisting an offender
in relation to firearms.

Questioning at a police station without arrest

Police often ask someone to accompany them to a police station. This is only an invitation and the person does not have to go with the police unless arrested. The police can only force someone to go to a police station if they are under arrest.

A person who refuses to go with the police may be arrested and charged, and taken into custody only if the police reasonably suspect that person of committing or having committed an offence, or of being about to commit an offence. Otherwise the police cannot detain the person. Detention without making a lawful arrest is false imprisonment for which the police can be sued. It may also mean any evidence obtained is excluded from evidence in a trial.

Tell the Jacks to arrest you or you will go em for false imprisonment.

The populace has no idea as to the importance of the right to remain silent. The brainwashing embodied in the spin, 'if you dont do anything wrong/illegal/are a law abiding citizen etc- then you have nothing to worry about', is leading to an erosion of freedom and liberty at the hands of a police and surveillance state. People that advocate for stop and search reforms make me sick. These people should be deported to North Korea.

It's only wrong if you get caught.

^^^

+1

Beat police have one of the toughest jobs going around (especially given the pay), and there is little point staying silent to prove a point.

stamp said...
you don't have the right to remain completely silent- police can demand identifying particulars and it's an offence not to provide them. you can also be arrested for refusing to assist police with their investigations if they reasonably believe you are withholding important info.

Which is why you should always ask "am I legally required to provide this information?" before answering every question.

If the police officer is wrong / lies you get off the hook...

PS: Yes my bush lawyer certification expired a few years ago