Legality of "no comment" interview answers

Grass between the tracks

Apart form S30 OAS 1939, is it legal to give a no comment interview to the Gardaí? Basically stare at the wall and refuse to answer any questions?

Example:

Garda: "Did you steal that bike?"
Suspect: "No comment!"

source

yes it is, A Garda will caution a person before an interview, saying :

"You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence."

galwaybetty

I think inferences can be drawn from a silence in certain circumstances. For instance if you provide a defence at trial that you didnt mention in the Garda Station, you could be asked why you didnt mention it and it could undermine your defence.

Our man in Havana

This is not the UK. I don't think the jury is allowed to take an adverse inference in the refusal to answer or give a statement.
Also you are not obliged assist the prosecution to convict you. Also you are allowed not to incriminate yourself.

source

Our man in Havana wrote: »

This is not the UK. I don't think the jury is allowed to take an adverse inference in the refusal to answer or give a statement.
Also you are not obliged assist the prosecution to convict you. Also you are allowed not to incriminate yourself.

Not 100% true, Section 19 Criminal Justice Act 1984.

19.—(1) Where—


(a) a person arrested without warrant by a member of the Garda Síochána was found by him at a particular place at or about the time the offence in respect of which he was arrested is alleged to have been committed, and


(b) the member reasonably believes that the presence of the person at that place and at that time may be attributable to his participation in the commission of the offence, and


(c) the member informs the person that he so believes, and requests him to account for such presence, and


(d) the person fails or refuses to do so,


then if, in any proceedings against the person for the offence, evidence of the said matters is given, the court, in determining whether to send forward the accused for trial or whether there is a case to answer and the court (or, subject to the judge's directions, the jury) in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged (or of any other offence of which he could lawfully be convicted on that charge) may draw such inferences from the failure or refusal as appear proper; and the failure or refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence in relation to which the failure or refusal is material, but a person shall not be convicted of an offence solely on an inference drawn from such failure or refusal.


(2) References in subsection (1) to evidence shall, in relation to the preliminary examination of a charge, be taken to include a statement of the evidence to be given by a witness at the trial.


(3) Subsection (1) shall not have effect unless the accused was told in ordinary language by the member of the Garda Síochána when making the request mentioned in subsection (1) (c) what the effect of the failure or refusal might be.


(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken to preclude the drawing of any inference from the failure or refusal of a person to account for his presence which could properly be drawn apart from this section.


(5) This section shall not apply in relation to a failure or refusal if the failure or refusal occurred before the commencement of this section.

Reloc8

Our man in Havana wrote: »

This is not the UK. I don't think the jury is allowed to take an adverse inference in the refusal to answer or give a statement.
Also you are not obliged assist the prosecution to convict you. Also you are allowed not to incriminate yourself.

No.

Both the above section for instance, and specific provisions of the Offences Against the State Legislation allow inferences against the accused to be drawn from a refusal to answer.

OP asks 'is it legal'.

Presuming he/she means does a person refusing to answer the question commit an offence, the answer is no.

More broadly, outside of OASA, can inferences be drawn against the accused for not answering, yes, as per the post above this.

dermot_sheehan

DPP v. finnerty

a person has a right to silence and the oireachtas in the 1984 act didn't intend to abolish this right, the failure to account under s. 18 or 19 of the 1984 act of being in possession of certain objects or marks on his body or being in a a certain place at a certain time can only corroborate the evidence given by such items being admitted evidence and can not convict or their own.

There is the express requirement to account for one's whereabouts under the offences against the state act upon penalty of conviction (Heany v. ireland).

What this means is that if an accused person gives "no comment" answers in a garda interview, the jury won't be told of such answers as it would be an abrogation of the right to silence. The jury would simply be told that the defendant was detained and nothing probative came from such a detention.

skyhighflyer

But what about the Criminal Justice Act 2007? It introduced a new s19A into the CJA 1984 which allows a court to draw an inference from the failure to mention certain facts that were later relied upon.

This applies to anyone held for an arrestable offence under s4 CJA 1984 so it's very broad. (and a disgrace, IMO but that's another debate).

So I would suggest the answer is that it's not illegal to answer 'no comment' in most scenarios but advice beforehand is paramount from a strategic perspective.

Victor

skyhighflyer wrote: »

But what about the Criminal Justice Act 2007? It introduced a new s19A into the CJA 1984 which allows a court to draw an inference from the failure to mention certain facts that were later relied upon.

It needs to be taken in context. That section is there to stop people making up alibis after being questioned by Gardaí.

Reloc8

Victor wrote: »

It needs to be taken in context. That section is there to stop people making up alibis after being questioned by Gardaí.

The 'inferences' provisions under the recent Criminal Justice Acts have no restriction whatsoever once activated during a detention for an applicable offence.

The older stuff under the OASA was there to prevent alibis being made up after the event, focusing on peoples 'movements' etc.

THe newer stuff is of general application. Ask any question, get no answer, adverse inferences can be drawn at trial.

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

There is the express requirement to account for one's whereabouts under the offences against the person act upon penalty of conviction (Heany v. ireland).


.

Sorry what - offences against the person ?

Our man in Havana

Has any of this been challenged in the courts?

dermot_sheehan

Reloc8 wrote: »

Sorry what - offences against the person ?

Offences against the State act,

thanks for spotting the typo :rolleyes:

Avatargh

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

the failure to account under s. 18 or 19 of the 1984 act of being in possession of certain objects or marks on his body or being in a a certain place at a certain time can only corroborate the evidence given by such items being admitted evidence and can not convict or their own.

That's just not accurate.

You've misunderstood the corroboration aspect of the amended ss. 18 & 19. If the sections are engaged the jury can

(1) draw such inferences as appear proper and
(2) the relevant failure may be corroborative of evidence in relation to which the failure or refusal is material.

To say the failure to account "can only corroborate..." is just not accurate as you're suggesting the inference can only constitute corroboration which is just not right and its not the corollary of the fact that the inference can't ground a conviction on its own. There is a serious difference between (1) inferences and (2) corroboration and you've missed that.

Avatargh

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Has any of this been challenged in the courts?

Yes. In the pre-2007 form. Rock.

dermot_sheehan

Avatargh wrote: »

That's just not accurate.

You've misunderstood the corroboration aspect of the amended ss. 18 & 19. If the sections are engaged the jury can

(1) draw such inferences as appear proper and
(2) the relevant failure may be corroborative of evidence in relation to which the failure or refusal is material.

To say the failure to account "can only corroborate..." is just not accurate as you're suggesting the inference can only constitute corroboration which is just not right and its not the corollary of the fact that the inference can't ground a conviction on its own. There is a serious difference between (1) inferences and (2) corroboration and you've missed that.

I admit re-reading what I typed was a sloppy use of words and is incorrect.

corroborate of course means effectively to provide an independent source of verification of the fact proved or disproved by the admission of the mark or item in question. So the failure to account for possession of the item can corroborate the fact that the accused had the item. But isn't proof of any other material facts.

inference means the jury can infer a set of facts from the set of facts as proved. So a failure to account for possession of the item, can lead for example to an inference that the accused used the item for a certain unlawful purpose.


Would you think this is an accurate statement of the corroboration/inference distinction?

Avatargh

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

I admit re-reading what I typed was a sloppy use of words and is incorrect.

corroborate of course means effectively to provide an independent source of verification of the fact proved or disproved by the admission of the mark or item in question. So the failure to account for possession of the item can corroborate the fact that the accused had the item. But isn't proof of any other material facts.

inference means the jury can infer a set of facts from the set of facts as proved. So a failure to account for possession of the item, can lead for example to an inference that the accused used the item for a certain unlawful purpose.

Would you think this is an accurate statement of the corroboration/inference distinction?

That's a difference, but the the inference doesn't have to have a corroborative relationship with the mark issue, or the presence issue. The provision permits the inference to be corroboration of anything it can be corroboration of, if that is the case. Hence, maybe, an inference of X as regards a failure under s.18 or s.19 could be corroboration of something else entirely, if possible.

There is no necessary tie to it being corroborative of the mark or presence issue.

obsidianclock

source wrote: »

Not 100% true, Section 19 Criminal Justice Act 1984.

True, however this is a theoretical risk.

IF you are interviewed and fail to answer questions and IF you are charged and IF the matter comes to court then the Prosecution MAY emphasise that you are only presenting this defence at the time of trial and the Jury MAY draw inferences from this fact.

Compared to the real risk that I would in all honesty say something to unknowingly implicate myself or truthfully reveal I was somewhere near where a crime occurred, I know which option I prefer!

Also cases cannot proceed solely or mainly on a suspect's silence. There does need to be some actual evidence of wrongdoing.

A few points to bear in mind however, with full recognition that I am not a Solicitor and you should always listen to their advice.

1) There are a number of circumstances that stop adverse inferences from being drawn e.g if the events took place a long time ago or if the Police haven't made sufficient disclosure and your Solicitor goes on the record saying that they've advised you to remain silent.

As soon as the interviewing officer feels there is enough evidence to charge you, they must end the interview. If they don't and keep answering questions, no inferences can be drawn from your silence.

2) In the UK at least, even if you are charged there is an intermediary stage between this and trial where you meet with your Solicitor and put together a Defence Statement. There is actually no legal obligation to do this and you can choose to remain silent throughout the entire process but in the statement, you can provide a summary of your defence e.g that you were nowhere near the scene of the crime at the time. The Prosecution Service will examine this and either drop charges or release further evidence as appropriate.

234

obsidianclock wrote: »

True, however this is a theoretical risk.

IF you are interviewed and fail to answer questions and IF you are charged and IF the matter comes to court then the Prosecution MAY emphasise that you are only presenting this defence at the time of trial and the Jury MAY draw inferences from this fact.

Compared to the real risk that I would in all honesty say something to unknowingly implicate myself or truthfully reveal I was somewhere near where a crime occurred, I know which option I prefer!

Also cases cannot proceed solely or mainly on a suspect's silence. There does need to be some actual evidence of wrongdoing.

A few points to bear in mind however, with full recognition that I am not a Solicitor and you should always listen to their advice.

1) There are a number of circumstances that stop adverse inferences from being drawn e.g if the events took place a long time ago or if the Police haven't made sufficient disclosure and your Solicitor goes on the record saying that they've advised you to remain silent.

As soon as the interviewing officer feels there is enough evidence to charge you, they must end the interview. If they don't and keep answering questions, no inferences can be drawn from your silence.

2) In the UK at least, even if you are charged there is an intermediary stage between this and trial where you meet with your Solicitor and put together a Defence Statement. There is actually no legal obligation to do this and you can choose to remain silent throughout the entire process but in the statement, you can provide a summary of your defence e.g that you were nowhere near the scene of the crime at the time. The Prosecution Service will examine this and either drop charges or release further evidence as appropriate.

First, this thread is four years old.

Secondly, there is no list per se for s.34 inferences in the UK. It's just that s.34 requires that you have not mentioned something which it would have been reasonable to mention when questioned, which you later rely on in your defence. So the reasonableness can take into account things like the accused being shocked and confused when being questioned. Anything that can explain away the silence can mean that it was reasonable.

This would be resolved before closing speeches between counsel and the judge. They would have voir dire on whether the Crown could invite the jury to draw an inference and if defence counsel convinces the judge that the silence was reasonable then the Crown can't invite an inference.

Thirdly, defence statements are only voluntary in the magistrates' court; in the Crown Court they are mandatory. And if you fail to provide one the Crown can invite the jury to draw an inference from this too (usually that the defence is a product of a recent concoction, especially if the accused gave a no comment interview).

obsidianclock

234 wrote: »

First, this thread is four years old.

Erm... what has the age of the thread to do with the price of fish? :-D

Also as you say the Defence Statement is not compulsory but inferences can be drawn if you fail to submit one.

My point was that if you feel there is some evidence that will exonerate you before the case goes to trial, the Police Station isn't your only opportunity to mention this - if there is a robust defence, the CPS can drop the case.

Sadly I cannot post links yet as my account is to new but the CPS website will provide info for anyone interested in how this applies in the UK.

234

obsidianclock wrote: »

Erm... what has the age of the thread to do with the price of fish? :-D

Edit: I was completely incorrect. Apologies.

obsidianclock

234 wrote: »

Mods, apologies if this is back-seat modding. Feel free to delete if so.

I think you've answered your own question... :-)

Pat Mustard

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87523054&postcount=13

The search function works well and is there to help assist you with your query. Many queries will have been answered before.

...

This rule gives rise to the corollary that resurrecting old threads is generally ok. Zombie threads will only be locked where there is a chance of confusion or further responses are irrelevant.

obsidianclock

234 wrote: »

Edit: I was completely incorrect. Apologies.

I am impressed by your humility but no need for apologies!

234

obsidianclock wrote: »

Also as you say the Defence Statement is not compulsory but inferences can be drawn if you fail to submit one.
.

Not exactly. It is compulsory in the Crown Court. Not in the magistrates'. The inference is the sanction for failure to provide one in the CC.

obsidianclock

I suppose the reason I wanted to add to this thread than start one of my own is that my question is the same as the OP's.

Having been arrested and given "no comment" interviews several times, I have been released without charge but of course that says nothing of how things would pan out if the matter were taken to court.

One compromise may be to make a pre-prepared statement. Apparently if you present a defence in court which is generally consistent with a written statement, adverse inferences cannot be drawn, at least in the UK!

I think personally I would prefer to give a statement to my Solicitor, so we can produce in court only if necessary.

234

obsidianclock wrote: »

I suppose the reason I wanted to add to this thread than start one of my own is that my question is the same as the OP's.

Having been arrested and given "no comment" interviews several times, I have been released without charge but of course that says nothing of how things would pan out if the matter were taken to court.

One compromise may be to make a pre-prepared statement. Apparently if you present a defence in court which is generally consistent with a written statement, adverse inferences cannot be drawn, at least in the UK!

I think personally I would prefer to give a statement to my Solicitor, so we can produce in court only if necessary.

The prepared statement that you refer to involves you agreeing a statement with your solicitor and then him reading this out in interview with the police. He doesn't keep it back, only to be produced in court.

They can be a good option in some circumstances. However, unless they address all the relevant issues then you are still going to be questioned on anything which you don't address in the statement and if you fail to answer the usual inferences can kick in.

Pat Mustard

It should be borne in mind that in the course of a criminal trial, transcripts of Garda interviews are read out by the prosecution.

Not only are the replies to the questions read out but the questions themselves are read out. Even if little turns on replies which deny wrongdoing, the Garda questions themselves can be loaded and may show an accused in a poor light to a jury.

If the accused has answered 'no comment', neither the question nor the reply can be read out.

Therefore, a reply of 'no comment' tends to reduce the amount of evidence that may be brought by the State.

It should also be borne in mind that nobody has been convicted on inferences in the State, yet.

obsidianclock

234 wrote: »

The prepared statement that you refer to involves you agreeing a statement with your solicitor and then him reading this out in interview with the police. He doesn't keep it back, only to be produced in court.

They can be a good option in some circumstances. However, unless they address all the relevant issues then you are still going to be questioned on anything which you don't address in the statement and if you fail to answer the usual inferences can kick in.

You have a choice of both of course. Your Solicitor can read out a pre-prepared statement - I was suggesting it might be a better idea to keep it back, so you have the choice though, apologies if this wasn't clear.

Also reading out a statement you concocted privately with your Solicitor at the station could be seen as a waiver of legal privilege, so the Prosecution may ask further questions if it comes to court.

In my opinion the fact that it's a written statement rather than the Solicitor taking the stand should be sufficient to prevent that from happening but I'm not legally trained, just keep my eye on the CPS and Liberty websites!

ScouseMouse

As somebody who was innocently caught up in something, and told the truth in an interview, only to find it thrown back at me in a court, I find this an interesting topic.

If asked questions in an interview, is it best to stay silent or answer no comment?

(Judge O'Connor threw it out by the way) I did learn my lesson though, I would now refuse to answer any questions of any description.

obsidianclock

The Mustard wrote: »

It should be borne in mind that in the course of a criminal trial, transcripts of Garda interviews are read out by the prosecution.

Not only are the replies to the questions read out but the questions themselves are read out. Even if little turns on replies which deny wrongdoing, the Garda questions themselves can be loaded and may show an accused in a poor light to a jury.

If the accused has answered 'no comment', neither the question nor the reply can be read out.

Therefore, a reply of 'no comment' tends to reduce the amount of evidence that may be brought by the State.

It should also be borne in mind that nobody has been convicted on inferences in the State, yet.

Well said Mustard,

As I understand it cases are not allowed to proceed which either wholly or mainly rely on silence.

I do remember reading a manual by Dr. Eric Shepherd who helped overhaul the Police Interrogation techniques in the 80s/90s - he himself said that on the balance of probabilities it's better for the suspect to remain silent, as if you do say something which is entirely exculpatory than it most likely won't be admitted by the Prosecution, particularly if it's in a written statement (see above!)

obsidianclock

ScouseMouse wrote: »

As somebody who was innocently caught up in something, and told the truth in an interview, only to find it thrown back at me in a court, I find this an interesting topic.

If asked questions in an interview, is it best to stay silent or answer no comment?

(Judge O'Connor threw it out by the way) I did learn my lesson though, I would now refuse to answer any questions of any description.

Hi ScouseMouse,

Really sorry to hear you had to go through that hassle. I went through this twice before I learned my lesson.

First time was where a young woman complained that someone had tried to mug her and steal her mobile phone. I was on my way home from work and in the area when they picked me up.

I did the right thing, denied everything, told them the names of the staff and punters present in the bar where I worked when the attack took place. Police Officers duly visited the place, took statements and viewed CCTV (didn't take a copy mind you!) but the only actually let me go when the girl in question was tracked down nearly 30 hours later and confirmed I wasn't the man (all they had to go on was tall with dark hair...).

The interview was a very uncomfortable experience as they seemed to think there was a predatory motive behind the attack as well as personal gain and they kept asking why I did it, to take them through my movements and I kept telling them I didn't know what they were talking about.

Of interest is the fact that even when they found evidence that I couldn't have done this as I was somewhere else, it was only when the victim made it clear she wouldn't identify me as her attacker that they dropped it.

Police build their careers on arrests and convictions, not unfortunate misunderstandings!

234

obsidianclock wrote: »

You have a choice of both of course. Your Solicitor can read out a pre-prepared statement - I was suggesting it might be a better idea to keep it back, so you have the choice though, apologies if this wasn't clear.

Also reading out a statement you concocted privately with your Solicitor at the station could be seen as a waiver of legal privilege, so the Prosecution may ask further questions if it comes to court.

Can we try to pin this down, as I'm still not exactly sure that you mean by keeping back a pre-prepared statement.

Unless you give the statement in interview, it will not in any circumstances protect you from any inferences for failure to answer. Neither can the statement be used at trial, it is hearsay. At most it might be admitted as a prior consistent statement to rebut a suggestion recent fabrication.

Also, I can't see any normal circumstances in which the reading out of a prepared statement would amount to a waiver of privilege. If you want outline a scenario in which it could happen that might help. The use of prepared statement is relatively common so in most cases nobody would assume that by giving on the client was waiving privilege.

obsidianclock

234 wrote: »

Can we try to pin this down, as I'm still not exactly sure that you mean by keeping back a pre-prepared statement.

Unless you give the statement in interview, it will not in any circumstances protect you from any inferences for failure to answer. Neither can the statement be used at trial, it is hearsay. At most it might be admitted as a prior consistent statement to rebut a suggestion recent fabrication.

Also, I can't see any normal circumstances in which the reading out of a prepared statement would amount to a waiver of privilege. If you want outline a scenario in which it could happen that might help. The use of prepared statement is relatively common so in most cases nobody would assume that by giving on the client was waiving privilege.

I meant that if you prepared a statement while consulting with your Solicitor but asked them to retain it rather than read it out, this could prove problematic if you rely on it at trial in that it could amount to a waiver of legal privilege.

Of course if you did choose to read it out at trial to prevent an accusation of recent fabrication, the jury could still draw adverse inferences from the fact you chose to do this rather than answer Police questions at the time. However, you're less likely to come to court in the first place if you tell the Police nothing IMO.

If of course you prepare a statement and read it out to the Police during interview that is another matter.

234

obsidianclock wrote: »

I meant that if you prepared a statement while consulting with your Solicitor but asked them to retain it rather than read it out, this could prove problematic if you rely on it at trial in that it could amount to a waiver of legal privilege.

If of course you prepare a statement and read it out to the Police during interview that is another matter.

Yes, I see where you are going.

In order to have the statement brought into evidence you would need to allow the solicitor to be examined, so yes there would be a necessary waiver of privilege. How far that goes would clearly be a matter for argument.

Tactically, it would be a very poor choice to prepare a statement but then only try to use it at trial.

spikeS

A follow on from the no comment question do you have to give a password when asked?

obsidianclock

234 wrote: »

Yes, I see where you are going.

In order to have the statement brought into evidence you would need to allow the solicitor to be examined, so yes there would be a necessary waiver of privilege. How far that goes would clearly be a matter for argument.

Tactically, it would be a very poor choice to prepare a statement but then only try to use it at trial.

A little gem from the CPS website:

"Privilege will not be waived if the defendant merely gives evidence to the effect that he was advised to be silent. If the defendant explains the reasons for the advice or the circumstances then that could amount to a waiver of the privilege. R v Bowden [1999] 4 All E.R. 43.

Privilege will not be waived if a solicitor is called to rebut an inference of subsequent fabrication by giving evidence that the fact was communicated to him by the defendant at or about the time of the interview. R v Condron and Condron [1997] 1 W.L.R. 827. "

This is why I would prefer to simply rely on a written statement as there'd be no implicit waiver of privilege. You simply have asked your Solicitor to witness a statement you prepared yourself.

If of course you wanted your Solicitor to confirm something you'd told them at time of interview, then that would be a different story. It appears that a simple admission of the facts by your Solicitor isn't a waiver of privilege as stated above.

obsidianclock

spikeS wrote: »

A follow on from the no comment question do you have to give a password when asked?

Hi Spike,

In the UK the answer is yes under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). A couple of people have been jailed for refusing to hand over their passwords. It only applies under certain circumstances.

Not sure what the situation is in Ireland!

One excellent defence against this is to use plausible deniability encryption whereby you have two passwords for an encrypted volume, one which points to some harmless dummy files and the other which reveals your private data. It's near impossible for someone to prove that there is another password for the volume.

Truecrypt and its successors like tcplay and Veracrypt support this feature.

spikeS

obsidianclock wrote: »

Hi Spike,

In the UK the answer is yes under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). A couple of people have been jailed for refusing to hand over their passwords. It only applies under certain circumstances.

Not sure what the situation is in Ireland!

One excellent defence against this is to use plausible deniability encryption whereby you have two passwords for an encrypted volume, one which points to some harmless dummy files and the other which reveals your private data. It's near impossible for someone to prove that there is another password for the volume.

Truecrypt and its successors like tcplay and Veracrypt support this feature.

What if you had a nfc chip in your finger that needs to be renewed every 24hr with conjunction of a password a two step system, if you got taken in the nfc password would expire and you would never be able to unlock it forced to do a wipe to get your system back

I alway wondered cause you see the guards asking for people they stop on drug busts to unlock the phone to read texts, can the person not refuse

obsidianclock

spikeS wrote: »

What if you had a nfc chip in your finger that needs to be renewed every 24hr with conjunction of a password a two step system, if you got taken in the nfc password would expire and you would never be able to unlock it forced to do a wipe to get your system back

I alway wondered cause you see the guards asking for people they stop on drug busts to unlock the phone to read texts, can the person not refuse

Hi Spike,

As I understand it they would need to serve you an official notice to hand over the password.

I agree with you that a "dead man's switch" would be an ideal way to make sure that your info is safe and if you head on over to the Information Security area of boards you can see some discussion on this subject.

Bear in mind you would still legally be obliged to provide the key but of course if you did so after the password had expired you'd be quids in.

Deniable encryption is fine so long as the decoy files look plausible enough to hide. My own files include details of my passwords for banking, scanned love letters from a couple of ex girlfriends (there aren't many!) and also some adult videos - all stuff you might want to hide!

spikeS

obsidianclock wrote: »

Hi Spike,

As I understand it they would need to serve you an official notice to hand over the password.

I agree with you that a "dead man's switch" would be an ideal way to make sure that your info is safe and if you head on over to the Information Security area of boards you can see some discussion on this subject.

Bear in mind you would still legally be obliged to provide the key but of course if you did so after the password had expired you'd be quids in.

Deniable encryption is fine so long as the decoy files look plausible enough to hide. My own files include details of my passwords for banking, scanned love letters from a couple of ex girlfriends (there aren't many!) and also some adult videos - all stuff you might want to hide!

Yeah I was just wondering what legally can happen if you use those methods of security and have a no comment stance.

obsidianclock

spikeS wrote: »

Yeah I was just wondering what legally can happen if you use those methods of security and have a no comment stance.

Under RIPA you can be punished for failing to divulge a password, however I seem to remember the maximum sentence is something small like 6 months so this might be preferable if they actually did catch someone guilty like a paedophile or terrorist who'll take the lesser sentence.

There's no requirement though for you to talk to the Police if you decide to cooperate though. Rendering the information into a format which is readable would be enough so for instance you could ask your Solicitor to have the Police bring you your mobile phone so you could key in the passcode.

This is a case though of prevention being better than cure. I think your idea of a 24 hour password is an excellent one, though personally I'd make it a smaller interval (mine is every 12 hours!).

Also if you have your password or keyfile stored on a USB stick or SD card and choose to destroy it before you can be arrested, that's also your right.

spikeS

obsidianclock wrote: »

Under RIPA you can be punished for failing to divulge a password, however I seem to remember the maximum sentence is something small like 6 months so this might be preferable if they actually did catch someone guilty like a paedophile or terrorist who'll take the lesser sentence.

There's no requirement though for you to talk to the Police if you decide to cooperate though. Rendering the information into a format which is readable would be enough so for instance you could ask your Solicitor to have the Police bring you your mobile phone so you could key in the passcode.

This is a case though of prevention being better than cure. I think your idea of a 24 hour password is an excellent one, though personally I'd make it a smaller interval (mine is every 12 hours!).

Also if you have your password or keyfile stored on a USB stick or SD card and choose to destroy it before you can be arrested, that's also your right.

If you ate the sd card once you heard the knock is that not willfully damaging evidence, but if it just didn't get a chance to renew it cause you or your equipment was being held away that's not you fault you where unable to.

12hrs is a bit tight, one might over sleep after a night out.

obsidianclock

spikeS wrote: »

If you ate the sd card once you heard the knock is that not willfully damaging evidence, but if it just didn't get a chance to renew it cause you or your equipment was being held away that's not you fault you where unable to.

12hrs is a bit tight, one might over sleep after a night out.

I am sure you're more sociable than I am Spike, I'm usually in bed by 10:30.