The brow beat her into making a false confession. Slapping her across the head and shouting at her. They had a confused and frightened young woman. The narrative about the bar man coming to the apartment was their suggestion. The police believed the bar owner was involved, because Knox had sent him a text saying see your later - which actually meant see you later at work, not see you later at the rape sex murder party.
The defamation case was completely bogus. And she may have it over turned.
The Italian police made an absolute balls of their investigation. It was ludicrous from the beginning.
The Guildford four all confessed.
Just an ordinary person, with no real knowledge of the law may not know that.
If I'm arrest for anything - I intend to say as little as possible.
Here's a reason why
This is the second part of lecture.
This is the first part
We're not really talking about someone called 'Bill' are we? - why not confess?
...not specifically related to inferences, but in relation to garda questioning, i'm familiar with rules governing the admissibility of an accused's admissions/confession, but am curious as to whether there exists in irish case law an expressed rule prohibiting/allowing Gardai to intentionally mislead a suspect in order to obtain a confession.
for example; telling a suspect that his fingerprint was found on a weapon, or that a witness saw him leaving the crime scene.
if this 'tricks' the suspect into admitting to the crime, as he now believes gardai have evidence against him anyway, although the confession was not as result of an inducement or oppressive conditions and was voluntary and otherwise lawful.....would there be grounds to have it excluded at trial...?
Such a 'confession would be inadmissable': AG v Cleary 1938; People (AG) v Flynn (1963)
What about this for a scenario.
Someone is detained at work for suspected stealing.
The owners tell them they have tapes and other sorts of proof.
Act threateningly and so on.
Eventually the person confesses.
They then call the cops and a Garda arrives and the person tells them the same as they just told the owners.
Is this considered a valid confession and can be used in court? Or can it later be claimed to have been coerced but not when the Garda was present?
I thought Flynn was about threats of violence against the accused not lies told by AGS.
The only AG v Cleary case is from 1934, in that again the member did not lie as such but threatened to bring her to the doctor to have her examined (I assume to prove she had recently given birth) them Ms. Cleary gave statement but again it was given after inducements or threats not a lie.
Your emphasis on "special" offences is a little misleading and is probably liable to downplay the importance of s.19A.
Does anyone have an unambiguous answer?
What guide lines do the Garda have?
George Bruch (the policeman from Virgina beach - in the video I posted) he says police can lie - at least American police. He also outlines many of the techniques he's used in questioning. Quite a bit of it is trickery.
My particular fear of questioning, is not that I am a criminal. It's that I could find myself in a situation where the Garda are convinced I'm guilty of something, and all they need me to say in questioning is X, Y, and Z, and X,Y, and Z could seem very innocuous - but it could be enough for me to be locked up for a long stretch, awaiting trial for a crime I did not commit. If all they need me to say is I was in a certain place, within a rough time frame, to lock me up - I certainly do not want to give out that information.
I'm not saying the Garda are thick, but sometimes they can be convinced of someone's involvement in something, that can be completely wrong. They may have a loopy informant who they give more credibility too than they should.
It's like the case of Amanda Knox. The Italian police dreamt up a ludicrous story of a sex murder party. Where there was no evidence to suggest this had happened. They become convinced of their own extraordinary fantasy. Where a more plausible scenario would have been a rape and murder carried out by one person. They have Rudy Guede. It's far more plausible that Rudy Guede carried out the murder by himself. But Italian police, in a wild and fevered flight of their imagination, lead themselves down the garden path.
Had Amanda Knox remained silent in questioning. They would have had absolutely nothing on her. Her first court case was laughable. DNA evidence? From her own flat......Which would have been covered in her DNA had she not been involved in a murder sex party.
The whole case absolutely absurd. The police involved should have been sent to jail for their carry on. Amanda Knox spent four years in jail - could have been there for the rest of her life.
Rudy Guede's conviction may even be unsound.
My understanding but I am open to correction is that AGS can tell fibs, ie "what would you say if I told you someone saw you at such and such a place!" now the accused has a right to silence except in very limited situations, so the accused can say nothing. Remember it is not AGS who declare a persons guilt that is the job of a judge or jury with the benefit of all the evidence.
In those situations AGS must explain in simple terms what the law is, and give reasonable access to solicitor, also any silence can only be used if other evidence exists, in other words if the only possible evidence is that the person stayed silent then it can't be used.
The reason solicitors advice silence in most cases, is that no matter what is said by AGS or the accused as long as the accused stays silent or refuses to answer questions by saying I will not on advice answer that, then such transcript of that interview will never be put before the court.
The cases mentioned earlier give good examples of when a statement would be excluded.
The police had found a Negro pubic hair at the crime scene and kept this secret but were suspicious of Knox and used her innocent text message to her boss to contrive a ridiculous accusation because her boss was black. Whether she agreed to anything during this interrogation in unknown as it was not recorded or witnessed. The fact is there was serious prosecution misconduct and this biased account from the police is highly unreliable.
We do know for certain that she wrote a statement retracting anything that might have been inferred from her role in that interrogation which included their attempt to implicate her boss . So her actions appear to be good rather than deceitful or bad.
Strange, the reference I have for Cleary is 1934 in the I.L.T.R, but I'm sure you're right.... A confession has to be voluntary, i.e., given of free will to be admissible and I doubt that one given following a lie told with the intention of extracting a confession would stand up. The criteria for exclusion are now fairly broad, c.f. the list in DPP v Shaw(1982!), and I'd say that a scenario involving such obvious mala fides on the part of the Guards would probably fall foul of this broad interpretation.
I think the Garda are allowed lie in interviews.
There was a case, and you can look this up, in Clonmel a few years ago.
A guy was shot.
The Garda arrested the guy they believed to be responsible. In questioning, the gaurds said something along the lines of, "we know you did it, we have witnesses at the scene who saw you." to which the suspect replied "That's bull****..I was wearing a balaclava and gloves". Game, set, and match.
Could someone advise me on the correct use of Garda, Gardai, Guards?
police trickery during interviewing of a suspect appears to be a grey area in ireland. is there really a significant difference by gardai phrasing a leading question to a suspect as: (A) "your fingerprints are at the crime scene", instead of, (B) "i put to you that your fingerprints are at the crime scene?"
the latter is always put to a suspect anyway where potentially relevant. for a confession made in response to (A) to be ruled inadmissible as there is no fingerprint evidence adduced by the prosecution at trial would seem (to me) inappropriate. allegations are always be put to a suspect during interviewing in a leading manner anyway. such a confession in itself is not coerced, but granted there will always be the danger of an innocent person unknowingly incriminating himself in response to such questions (eg. putting himself at or near the crime scene) or giving inconsistent responses due to nerves etc. at the same time there is no reason for police questioning to be a genteel encounter either.
if gardai lie during questioning about the existence of evidence against a suspect, such as a witness coming forward, this 'evidence' is not going to be adduced at trial, so is the accused prejudiced? should the particular confession which came on foot of it be assessed on its particular merits by the judge/jury, such as the intricate details given by the suspect, demeanour etc.?
there is an element of mala fides here, but the same can be said in a scenario where an undercover police officer purchases drugs from a street dealer in order to secure a prosecution against them. here of course the accused would be committing the offence in front of your eyes, but there is trickery from the outset on the part of the police, which has stood the test of time worldwide in superior courts.
although having typed the above i can very vaguely recall a case law referred to in caroline fennell's 2009 edition, which essentially makes a confession made on foot of lies inadmissible. !!
If you are brought in for questioning do you have the right to:
A. Speak with a solicitor before questioning.
B. Have you solicitor sit in with you during questioning
C. If B is not correct, can you ask to speak with your solicitor anytime during the interrogation.