I’m pretty sure I have seen clients about to say something in a tv police documentary, the solicitor has whispered something to them, then the inevitable “ No Comment” gets uttered.
It may be the series I watch just show obviously guilty individuals who mutter these words which has slanted my views, but with violent crime rising and police numbers falling ( no Boris 20k extra isn’t actually more numbers than before) something drastic needs to be done to help balance things.
Experienced criminals dont need this advice. I am sure that it is the initial advice from just about all solicitors. I think one thing that could change this is the jury having to watch the interrogation tapes. Just seeing the smirking, grinning faces, when they are no commenting, thinking they are taking the pi55 out of the police, may encourage the jury to take a different view of their innocence or guilt. When an experienced criminal turns up at court wearing a suit and a tie, and displaying a completely different attitude, it is easy to see how a jury may take a different view, from the one they might have taken, if they had viewed the tapes.
I’m pretty sure I have seen clients about to say something in a tv police documentary, the solicitor has whispered something to them, then the inevitable “ No Comment” gets uttered.
It may be the series I watch just show obviously guilty individuals who mutter these words which has slanted my views, but with violent crime rising and police numbers falling ( no Boris 20k extra isn’t actually more numbers than before) something drastic needs to be done to help balance things.
Experienced criminals dont need this advice. I am sure that it is the initial advice from just about all solicitors. I think one thing that could change this is the jury having to watch the interrogation tapes. Just seeing the smirking, grinning faces, when they are no commenting, thinking they are taking the pi55 out of the police, may encourage the jury to take a different view of their innocence or guilt. When an experienced criminal turns up at court wearing a suit and a tie, and displaying a completely different attitude, it is easy to see how a jury may take a different view, from the one they might have taken, if they had viewed the tapes.
You could be right, however current GDPR rules may forbid the showing of them unless the one being interviewed consents.
I’m pretty sure I have seen clients about to say something in a tv police documentary, the solicitor has whispered something to them, then the inevitable “ No Comment” gets uttered.
It may be the series I watch just show obviously guilty individuals who mutter these words which has slanted my views, but with violent crime rising and police numbers falling ( no Boris 20k extra isn’t actually more numbers than before) something drastic needs to be done to help balance things.
Experienced criminals dont need this advice. I am sure that it is the initial advice from just about all solicitors. I think one thing that could change this is the jury having to watch the interrogation tapes. Just seeing the smirking, grinning faces, when they are no commenting, thinking they are taking the pi55 out of the police, may encourage the jury to take a different view of their innocence or guilt. When an experienced criminal turns up at court wearing a suit and a tie, and displaying a completely different attitude, it is easy to see how a jury may take a different view, from the one they might have taken, if they had viewed the tapes.
You could be right, however current GDPR rules may forbid the showing of them unless the one being interviewed consents.
Wasn't the wording of the caution when arrested changed quite a few years ago to avoid the 'No Comment' interview,then coming up with a defence/excuse once in court.
I’m pretty sure I have seen clients about to say something in a tv police documentary, the solicitor has whispered something to them, then the inevitable “ No Comment” gets uttered.
It may be the series I watch just show obviously guilty individuals who mutter these words which has slanted my views, but with violent crime rising and police numbers falling ( no Boris 20k extra isn’t actually more numbers than before) something drastic needs to be done to help balance things.
Experienced criminals dont need this advice. I am sure that it is the initial advice from just about all solicitors. I think one thing that could change this is the jury having to watch the interrogation tapes. Just seeing the smirking, grinning faces, when they are no commenting, thinking they are taking the pi55 out of the police, may encourage the jury to take a different view of their innocence or guilt. When an experienced criminal turns up at court wearing a suit and a tie, and displaying a completely different attitude, it is easy to see how a jury may take a different view, from the one they might have taken, if they had viewed the tapes.
You could be right, however current GDPR rules may forbid the showing of them unless the one being interviewed consents.
Well that is what should be changed then.
Then they change their attitude and adapt for the camera whilst still pursuing the “ No Comment” route, wouldn’t be surprised to see tears.
The simple change of having to answer questions whilst in the company of solicitor or parent/guardian moves things along.
“ Were you in the vicinity when Mr X got stabbed “ is easy to answer yes or no, a “ No comment” could mean yes or no.
Wasn't the wording of the caution when arrested changed quite a few years ago to avoid the 'No Comment' interview,then coming up with a defence/excuse once in court.
Yes they did, but “ It may harm your defence” doesn’t stop the “ No Comment” A half decent solicitor will give umpteen reasons for his client taking this stance.
I’m pretty sure I have seen clients about to say something in a tv police documentary, the solicitor has whispered something to them, then the inevitable “ No Comment” gets uttered.
It may be the series I watch just show obviously guilty individuals who mutter these words which has slanted my views, but with violent crime rising and police numbers falling ( no Boris 20k extra isn’t actually more numbers than before) something drastic needs to be done to help balance things.
Experienced criminals dont need this advice. I am sure that it is the initial advice from just about all solicitors. I think one thing that could change this is the jury having to watch the interrogation tapes. Just seeing the smirking, grinning faces, when they are no commenting, thinking they are taking the pi55 out of the police, may encourage the jury to take a different view of their innocence or guilt. When an experienced criminal turns up at court wearing a suit and a tie, and displaying a completely different attitude, it is easy to see how a jury may take a different view, from the one they might have taken, if they had viewed the tapes.
You could be right, however current GDPR rules may forbid the showing of them unless the one being interviewed consents.
Well that is what should be changed then.
Then they change their attitude and adapt for the camera whilst still pursuing the “ No Comment” route, wouldn’t be surprised to see tears.
The simple change of having to answer questions whilst in the company of solicitor or parent/guardian moves things along.
“ Were you in the vicinity when Mr X got stabbed “ is easy to answer yes or no, a “ No comment” could mean yes or no.
I just think that at least some may be more cooperative in the knowledge that the tapes would be seen by the jury. They would surely wish to create a better impression if this was the case. In the meantime I am sure the number of guilty verdicts would increase, as the jury were able to see their attitude. Maybe the advice from solicitors would change, and this could only be a good thing.
Wasn't the wording of the caution when arrested changed quite a few years ago to avoid the 'No Comment' interview,then coming up with a defence/excuse once in court.
I think that juries see a completely different person compared to the one that refused to cooperate in any of the interviews. I have found myself swearing, and muttering about throwing away keys, when watching documentaries that include no comment police interviews. Yet the same suspect appears to be a completely different person when they appear in court. Criminals often trip themselves up, when answering questions, and should be encouraged to do so.
Wasn't the wording of the caution when arrested changed quite a few years ago to avoid the 'No Comment' interview,then coming up with a defence/excuse once in court.
I think that juries see a completely different person compared to the one that refused to cooperate in any of the interviews. I have found myself swearing, and muttering about throwing away keys, when watching documentaries that include no comment police interviews. Yet the same suspect appears to be a completely different person when they appear in court. Criminals often trip themselves up, when answering questions, and should be encouraged to do so.
And often come out laughing and sticking a virtual finger up at the justice system.
I wish I would have gone to Nottingham sky poker now, pretty sure the good lady would have understood the “ I’m going to have a chat with @HAYSIE about the No comment bull.... and Brexit , Ida loved it.
I wish I would have gone to Nottingham sky poker now, pretty sure the good lady would have understood the “ I’m going to have a chat with @HAYSIE about the No comment bull.... and Brexit , Ida loved it.
Wasn't the wording of the caution when arrested changed quite a few years ago to avoid the 'No Comment' interview,then coming up with a defence/excuse once in court.
I think that juries see a completely different person compared to the one that refused to cooperate in any of the interviews. I have found myself swearing, and muttering about throwing away keys, when watching documentaries that include no comment police interviews. Yet the same suspect appears to be a completely different person when they appear in court. Criminals often trip themselves up, when answering questions, and should be encouraged to do so.
And often come out laughing and sticking a virtual finger up at the justice system.
I wish I would have gone to Nottingham sky poker now, pretty sure the good lady would have understood the “ I’m going to have a chat with @HAYSIE about the No comment bull.... and Brexit , Ida loved it.
Manchester then?
I’m working on it Tony Do you think it would help my case if I taped all the “ good stuff” I do to build brownie points 😉
I wish I would have gone to Nottingham sky poker now, pretty sure the good lady would have understood the “ I’m going to have a chat with @HAYSIE about the No comment bull.... and Brexit , Ida loved it.
Manchester then?
I’m working on it Tony Do you think it would help my case if I taped all the “ good stuff” I do to build brownie points 😉
It’s hardly surprising conviction rates are low. “I’m a reformed criminal, but here’s a step by step guide on how to frustrate the police and not drop yourself in it if you’re guilty” 🤬 ( Note, I only watched the first couple of minutes of the first video, maybe he says please co-operate with the police and the world will be a better, safer place later in the film)
Comments
I am sure that it is the initial advice from just about all solicitors.
I think one thing that could change this is the jury having to watch the interrogation tapes.
Just seeing the smirking, grinning faces, when they are no commenting, thinking they are taking the pi55 out of the police, may encourage the jury to take a different view of their innocence or guilt.
When an experienced criminal turns up at court wearing a suit and a tie, and displaying a completely different attitude, it is easy to see how a jury may take a different view, from the one they might have taken, if they had viewed the tapes.
The simple change of having to answer questions whilst in the company of solicitor or parent/guardian moves things along.
“ Were you in the vicinity when Mr X got stabbed “ is easy to answer yes or no, a “ No comment” could mean yes or no.
A half decent solicitor will give umpteen reasons for his client taking this stance.
They would surely wish to create a better impression if this was the case.
In the meantime I am sure the number of guilty verdicts would increase, as the jury were able to see their attitude.
Maybe the advice from solicitors would change, and this could only be a good thing.
I have found myself swearing, and muttering about throwing away keys, when watching documentaries that include no comment police interviews.
Yet the same suspect appears to be a completely different person when they appear in court.
Criminals often trip themselves up, when answering questions, and should be encouraged to do so.
Do you think it would help my case if I taped all the “ good stuff” I do to build brownie points 😉
“I’m a reformed criminal, but here’s a step by step guide on how to frustrate the police and not drop yourself in it if you’re guilty” 🤬
( Note, I only watched the first couple of minutes of the first video, maybe he says please co-operate with the police and the world will be a better, safer place later in the film)