yet again, driver gets away with it.

[buggi]

So yet again, the driver who facilitates his mates trying to push me off my bike gets away with it, coz he gave a no comment interview.

 

[NormanD]

The law in this country is outdated and pathetic ... Never mind Buggi

 

[SurlyNomad]

Nitromors works really well! or so ive heard! Big believer in what goes around comes around.

 

[Moodyman]

You have my sympathy Buggi - must be really hard being a female cyclist.

I seldom get attention when cycling or running, but last week a female colleague joined me on my lunchtime run.

She's quite attractive and was wearing lycra - the attention that we (she) got from drivers/pedestrians was unpleasant.

 

[Tynan]

the law of being innocent until proved guilty?

I am one of the people that know nothing about what happened btw

 

[lit]

no comment is usually assumed to be a asumption of guilt by the police.

 

[YahudaMoon]

Yeah but you gave him/her some inconvieniance so he / she may think twice about doing it again.

Well done for putting a complaint in

 

[Tynan]

no comment is usually assumed to be a asumption of guilt by the police.

no it isn't

 

[lit]

yes it is (unofficially at least)

if you haven't nothing to worry about, why the no comment....

 

[Jezston]

So yet again, the driver who facilitates his mates trying to push me off my bike gets away with it, coz he gave a no comment interview.

Well that sounds awful.

What's the story?

 

[CopperCyclist]

no comment is usually assumed to be a asumption of guilt by the police.

Yes it is. Both officially and unofficially. CPS guidelines were brought in a while ago that advised for a no comment interview to be treated as a guilty plea for mags court offences. However this seemed to be quickly forgotten and things went back to normal.

To Buggi - sorry he got away with it. If its any recompense - and I know its not - its not just your cycling offence this works for, people get away with all sorts of crimes all the time using this tactic.

I disagree with our system of the right to not self-incriminate. Please not this is NOT the same as innocent until proven guilty. Personally I think that if you are unlucky enough to have a) done the crime and b) been arrested for said crime, you shouldn't have an inherent right to refuse to give any account. Seriously, can you think of any scenario where an innocent person wouldn't want to give their account!

 

[Nortones2]

Yes it is. Both officially and unofficially. CPS guidelines were brought in a while ago that advised for a no comment interview to be treated as a guilty plea for mags court offences. However this seemed to be quickly forgotten and things went back to normal.

To Buggi - sorry he got away with it. If its any recompense - and I know its not - its not just your cycling offence this works for, people get away with all sorts of crimes all the time using this tactic.

I disagree with our system of the right to not self-incriminate. Please not this is NOT the same as innocent until proven guilty. Personally I think that if you are unlucky enough to have a) done the crime and b) been arrested for said crime, you shouldn't have an inherent right to refuse to give any account. Seriously, can you think of any scenario where an innocent person wouldn't want to give their account!

OK: one here!

"Ten years ago on a cold dark night Someone was killed 'neath the Town Hall light
The people who saw, they all agreed That the slayer, who ran, looked a lot like me
The judge said, "Son, what is your alibi? If you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die"
I spoke not a word, though it meant my life For I'd been in the arms of my best friend's wife..."

Don't know why, but these lyrics sprang to mind Apparently first recorded 1959, but I only know the Joan Baez version.

 

[Tynan]

because the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, end of, or at least before they brought in that no comment tweak

if no comment is to be taken as guilty then why would be anyone go no comment?

everytime populist changes to criminal justice and rights etc are made to a system developed over hundreds of years we become a bit more like some tinpot place where the police can throw you in jail and forget about you

oh yeah they can do that already if they say you're some sort of terrosit only they can't tell anyone why because it's a secret

the police aren't trying to find out what happened when they interview you, they're fishing for evidence to make charges stick, why would anyone help them do that, heaven knows they're fitted enough people up in the past, if they can;t make it stick without help from the defendant then they should drop it

......................

At common law, adverse inferences could be drawn from silence only in limited circumstances in which an accusation of guilt was made. It was a necessary that the accused be on even terms with the person making a charge and that it was reasonable to expect the accused to answer immediately the charge put to him (although it was not clear if the rule applied where the accusation was made by or in the presence of police officers).

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provide statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:

• fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
• fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
• fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
• fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.[sup][4][/sup] Further it is questionable whether a conviction based mainly on silence would be compatible with the European Court of Human Rights. If there has been a breach of the PACE Codes of Practice, the evidence is more likely to be excluded under s. 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Code envisages, amongst other things, recorded police interviews taking place at a police station, where the accused has access to legal advice and after the caution in the following terms has been given:

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.

​

 

[BentMikey]

Shame Buggi, poor you. That must be frustrating beyond words. Could you tell us a bit more about what happened, and why it's a repeat offender?

 

[leemo]

I would always no comment if I'd done nothing wrong

Police interview is for the benefit of the police. You can't get proven innocent in a police interview. That is what a court is for.

See this

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=youtube_gdata_player