Arrest and no comment - I want my solictor??

jnaseer

Hi,
If the guards arrested you for anything, can you just say "I want my solictor" and "no comment"?

Do you have to answer any questions and what other things would you need to be street smart (so to speak) for - Do guards often employ illegal activites behind closed doors?

Also, What about a person with aspergers who isn't able to speak to people easily if they were brought before a judge, or a person having other mental issues and being treated by the HSE?

Thanks.

jnaseer

jnaseer wrote: »

Hi,
If the guards arrested you for anything, can you just say "I want my solictor" and "no comment"?

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

"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."

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/arrests.html

Strawberry Fields

You have a constitutionally guaranteed right to silence. Privilege against self incrimination. Whether they can question prior to you having a solicitor is conflicting some European authorities suggest no whereas they might get away with it here, I'm sure someone else will elaborate.

Procrastastudy

You'd be well advised to say "I want my solicitor" and "no comment" until you've spoken to your solicitor. If you are going to engage in this stick to it. I heard a great one when I was living in Fife. Kirkcaldy police at a builder for hours... "no comment"... "no comment" over some theft or other. God knows how many hours in one cop says "I heard you did XYZ roofing job?"... "no comment" ... "I'm not surprised it was sh&te"... guy started to defend it and they literally got him from there.

Contrary to common belief the police aren't stupid.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for co-operating with the guards, but if its got to the point you've been arrested you are now in the adversarial system and you need a professional.

Marcusm

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

You'd be well advised to say "I want my solicitor" and "no comment" until you've spoken to your solicitor. If you are going to engage in this stick to it. I heard a great one when I was living in Fife. Kirkcaldy police at a builder for hours... "no comment"... "no comment" over some theft or other. God knows how many hours in one cop says "I heard you did XYZ roofing job?"... "no comment" ... "I'm not surprised it was sh&te"... guy started to defend it and they literally got him from there.

Contrary to common belief the police aren't stupid.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for co-operating with the guards, but if its got to the point you've been arrested you are now in the adversarial system and you need a professional.

What do yu think of the fact that in Ireland your right is to ave a consultation with a solicitor but that hey're not present forthe actual questioning?

Procrastastudy

I've never been able to get a good answer why. To my mind its pretty suspect. You're a single person probably frightened with little understanding of whats going on v 2 or possibly more people with years of experience and training. The fact that some interviews aren't even taped also worries me. Personally I think they should be video-taped for the entire duration of custody.

I suppose there is an argument for if 'you've nothing to hide' but I'm not a fan of that in the adversarial system - which, I personally believe, begins the moment you are arrested.

castie

I suppose you could maintain silence whenever the solicitor is not in the room and inform the gardai of such.

Then if they want anything out of you they know what they have to do.

Zambia

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I've never been able to get a good answer why. To my mind its pretty suspect. You're a single person probably frightened with little understanding of whats going on v 2 or possibly more people with years of experience and training.

The fact is you still know what you did or what they are asking you about.

The interview is really your chance to explain the set of circumstances that has lead you to be arrested. The police already have grounds to arrest you chances are those grounds are enough to charge you as well.

So maybe explaining your actions to the police could lead them to exonerating you.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

The fact that some interviews aren't even taped also worries me. Personally I think they should be video-taped for the entire duration of custody.

Not possible the arrest happens outside the station.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I suppose there is an argument for if 'you've nothing to hide' but I'm not a fan of that in the adversarial system - which, I personally believe, begins the moment you are arrested.

Correct which is why when you are arrested you are cautioned almost immediately.

I find a lot of people seem to think the Police want to "fit people" up. This is not the case at all. While there may have been a few isolated cases in the most part the Garda just want a clear picture of what happened so those at fault can be charged.

Procrastastudy

Generally arrests are not there to investigate - there are some under legislation. They are there to 'bring you before a court' basically meaning if you're arrested it's suspected/likely you did it.

I'm not putting that across very well but it's been examined and I can only fit so much into my brain - I'll have to go back over it again next semester.

Zambia

jnaseer wrote: »

Hi,

Also, What about a person with aspergers who isn't able to speak to people easily if they were brought before a judge, or a person having other mental issues and being treated by the HSE?

I suspect an Independent third person would sit in the interview to ensure the rights of the accused.

Our man in Havana

Often the police do not have enough to secure a conviction and need a confession to seal the deal. You are not obliged to help them convict you.

Pkiernan

Zambia wrote: »

The fact is you still know what you did or what they are asking you about.

The interview is really your chance to explain the set of circumstances that has lead you to be arrested. The police already have grounds to arrest you chances are those grounds are enough to charge you as well.

So maybe explaining your actions to the police could lead them to exonerating you.

No offence, Mod, but this is really, really bad advice (I know you are not giving advice as such).

If an individual has been arrested, then if he or she has any sense, they will realise that the Gardai are NOT there to help, not there to exonerate - they are there to gather evidence for the prosecution. Nothing else.

People NEVER, EVERtalk their way out of being arrested.

Keep quiet and wait for legal counsel.

murrayp4

Here's a really interesting video about the right to silence in the American context but much of it applies here.
See if you can keep up with the speaker :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

seb65

jnaseer wrote: »

Hi,
If the guards arrested you for anything, can you just say "I want my solictor" and "no comment"?

Do you have to answer any questions and what other things would you need to be street smart (so to speak) for - Do guards often employ illegal activites behind closed doors?

Also, What about a person with aspergers who isn't able to speak to people easily if they were brought before a judge, or a person having other mental issues and being treated by the HSE?

Thanks.

It is important to remember, that while you have a right to remain silent there is also legislation that allows for adverse inferences to be drawn from your silence in a few matters.

That is, if you refuse to answer the question, the fact that you refused can be presented in court and used against you.

For it to be admissible, the Garda have to explain the piece of adverse inference legislation to you in plain language - and its consequences.

From what I recall, there was one case where the suspect was told about the adverse inference and he said he wasn't refusing to answer the question, but he wanted to speak to a solicitor first. I think the Garda tried to use his delay in answering the question against him in court, but the judge did not allow it in. Feel free anyone to correct me if I'm mistaken.

Zambia

Pkiernan wrote: »

No offence, Mod, but this is really, really bad advice (I know you are not giving advice as such).

If an individual has been arrested, then if he or she has any sense, they will realise that the Gardai are NOT there to help, not there to exonerate - they are there to gather evidence for the prosecution. Nothing else.

People NEVER, EVERtalk their way out of being arrested.

Keep quiet and wait for legal counsel.

I agree the Garda are not there to assist you they are there to basically establish the facts of the incident and highlight and charge offenders.

If you indeed are an offender of course you would prefer the versions of events to remain unclear.

Just because you are arrested it does not mean you have to be charged. An arrest requires reasonable grounds a charge a lot more so.

ResearchWill

Zambia wrote: »

I agree the Garda are not there to assist you they are there to basically establish the facts of the incident and highlight and charge offenders.

If you indeed are an offender of course you would prefer the versions of events to remain unclear.

Just because you are arrested it does not mean you have to be charged. An arrest requires reasonable grounds a charge a lot more so.

An arrest does not require reasonable grounds for a charge, just that an arrestable offence may have be committed and the arrest is required for the proper investigation.

Zambia

ResearchWill wrote: »

An arrest does not require reasonable grounds for a charge, just that an arrestable offence may have be committed and the arrest is required for the proper investigation.

You are arrested for theft not for the investigation of theft.

However we are straying and splitting hairs

ResearchWill

Zambia wrote: »

You are arrested for theft not for the investigation of theft.

However we are straying and splitting hairs

No if you are arrested for theft and they believe they have enough evidence then you will be charged. If on the other hand they have a complaint and reasonable suspect you then you will be arrested under section 4 for the proper investigation.

johnnyskeleton

Zambia wrote: »

The fact is you still know what you did or what they are asking you about.

The interview is really your chance to explain the set of circumstances that has lead you to be arrested. The police already have grounds to arrest you chances are those grounds are enough to charge you as well.

So maybe explaining your actions to the police could lead them to exonerating you.

That's such a pathetic line, used by the Gardai all the time.

If it was genuinely "your chance to explain" what has happened, if someone said "I don't want to make any comment" that would be the end of the interview and there would be no further questions. After all, the person clearly doesn't want to give their version of events.

Yet we have this crazy system whereby even though someone doesn't want to even try to explain themselves, they are nevertheless detained for 24, 48 72 hours or whatever and constantly asked question after question, very often the questions are the exact same as were asked before. And unless it can be shown that there were actual threats or incentives offered, or the time for detention runs out, this is all assumed to be voluntary admissions.

What's also appalling is that the police interview is in effect a criminal trial only backwards. The complainant is not subjected to cross examination, the prosecution's case is not tested, but the accused is nevertheless required to answer a case that he is never given a full account of. In some cases, a statement of complaint will only be drawn up after the accused has given his statement, and the complainant will be directed towards providing a statement to disprove what the accused has already said.

So while in a courtroom an accused will hear what is said against him and then respond, in a criminal investigation the prosecution will hear what is said against them and taylor their case to pot him.

Zambia

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's such a pathetic line, used by the Gardai all the time.

Really someone was interviewed for 24 Hours?

When did that last happen ?

ResearchWill

Zambia wrote: »

Really someone was interviewed for 24 Hours?

When did that last happen ?

I think the poster used the word "detained" not interviewed. Detentions over 24 hours are common.

Scofflaw

ResearchWill wrote: »

No if you are arrested for theft and they believe they have enough evidence then you will be charged. If on the other hand they have a complaint and reasonable suspect you then you will be arrested under section 4 for the proper investigation.

As was explained to me on one occasion, if they have a statement from a witness that says you did something, they have to make an arrest, even if the witness later retracts the statement.

On the OP, you should have, from fairly soon, a "letter of rights" which has to be provided to you at the time of your arrest:

The Directive on the right to information will ensure that police and prosecutors provide suspects with information about their rights. Following an arrest, authorities will give this information in writing – in the form of a Letter of Rights – drafted in simple, everyday language. It will be provided to suspects upon arrest in all cases, whether they ask for it or not, and it will be translated if needed. EU countries are free to choose the exact wording of the Letter, but to save work the Commission proposed a model available in 22 EU languages (see Annex). This will provide consistency for people crossing borders and limit translation costs.

The Letter of Rights will contain practical details about the rights of persons arrested or detained, such as the right:

to remain silent;
to a lawyer;
to be informed of the charge;
to interpretation and translation in any language for those who do not understand the language of the proceedings;
to be brought promptly before a court following arrest;
to inform someone else about the arrest or detention.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/press_office/news_of_the_day/letter-of-rights_en.htm

cordially,
Scofflaw

keano007

Scofflaw wrote: »

ResearchWill wrote: »

No if you are arrested for theft and they believe they have enough evidence then you will be charged. If on the other hand they have a complaint and reasonable suspect you then you will be arrested under section 4 for the proper investigation.

As was explained to me on one occasion, if they have a statement from a witness that says you did something, they have to make an arrest, even if the witness later retracts the statement.

On the OP, you should have, from fairly soon, a "letter of rights" which has to be provided to you at the time of your arrest:

The Directive on the right to information will ensure that police and prosecutors provide suspects with information about their rights. Following an arrest, authorities will give this information in writing – in the form of a Letter of Rights – drafted in simple, everyday language. It will be provided to suspects upon arrest in all cases, whether they ask for it or not, and it will be translated if needed. EU countries are free to choose the exact wording of the Letter, but to save work the Commission proposed a model available in 22 EU languages (see Annex). This will provide consistency for people crossing borders and limit translation costs.

The Letter of Rights will contain practical details about the rights of persons arrested or detained, such as the right:

to remain silent;
to a lawyer;
to be informed of the charge;
to interpretation and translation in any language for those who do not understand the language of the proceedings;
to be brought promptly before a court following arrest;
to inform someone else about the arrest or detention.

http://ec.europa.eu/ireland/press_office/news_of_the_day/letter-of-rights_en.htm

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's called a C72(s). All persons arrested get a copy and have it explained to them.

keano007

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Zambia wrote: »

The fact is you still know what you did or what they are asking you about.

The interview is really your chance to explain the set of circumstances that has lead you to be arrested. The police already have grounds to arrest you chances are those grounds are enough to charge you as well.

So maybe explaining your actions to the police could lead them to exonerating you.

That's such a pathetic line, used by the Gardai all the time.

If it was genuinely "your chance to explain" what has happened, if someone said "I don't want to make any comment" that would be the end of the interview and there would be no further questions. After all, the person clearly doesn't want to give their version of events.

Yet we have this crazy system whereby even though someone doesn't want to even try to explain themselves, they are nevertheless detained for 24, 48 72 hours or whatever and constantly asked question after question, very often the questions are the exact same as were asked before. And unless it can be shown that there were actual threats or incentives offered, or the time for detention runs out, this is all assumed to be voluntary admissions.

What's also appalling is that the police interview is in effect a criminal trial only backwards. The complainant is not subjected to cross examination, the prosecution's case is not tested, but the accused is nevertheless required to answer a case that he is never given a full account of. In some cases, a statement of complaint will only be drawn up after the accused has given his statement, and the complainant will be directed towards providing a statement to disprove what the accused has already said.

So while in a courtroom an accused will hear what is said against him and then respond, in a criminal investigation the prosecution will hear what is said against them and taylor their case to pot him.

So what's your alternative solution to this problem. Do you suggest the gardai when interviewing people say do you have anything to say and if the accused say no they leave it at that.

I'd like to think if one of my family members was the injured party to a crime it would be investigated thoroughly including adequate questioning of the suspect. I'd imagine also that if one of your family members was you would also!!!

Zambia

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yet we have this crazy system whereby even though someone doesn't want to even try to explain themselves, they are nevertheless detained for 24, 48 72 hours or whatever and constantly asked question after question, very often the questions are the exact same as were asked before. And unless it can be shown that there were actual threats or incentives offered, or the time for detention runs out, this is all assumed to be voluntary admissions.

Detentions + The bold above

So I say again when did this happen?

Scofflaw

keano007 wrote: »

It's called a C72(s). All persons arrested get a copy and have it explained to them.

There's a copy of it here (at the end): http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/Detentions%20%20Periods%20doc%20%20Revised%20%209%2011%2011%20%20%282%29%20%282%29.pdf

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Zambia wrote: »

Detentions + The bold above

So I say again when did this happen?

I'm sure somewhere in Ireland right now there are people being detained for 24, 48, 72 hours etc and constantly interviewed about issues that they have answered in previous interviews.

Zambia

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sure somewhere in Ireland right now there are people being detained for 24, 48, 72 hours etc and constantly interviewed about issues that they have answered in previous interviews.

How can you be sure ?

If you do not know the name of one person the Gardai did this to how can you be sure.

72 Hour interview .... Thats some Overtime bill

johnnyskeleton

keano007 wrote: »

So what's your alternative solution to this problem. Do you suggest the gardai when interviewing people say do you have anything to say and if the accused say no they leave it at that.

I'd like to think if one of my family members was the injured party to a crime it would be investigated thoroughly including adequate questioning of the suspect. I'd imagine also that if one of your family members was you would also!!!

We either have a right to silence or we don't. Similarly, a confession is admissible because it is voluntary or it is not.

So if we have the right to silence and only a voluntary confession is admissible, then anyone who genuinely wants to confess can do so and everyone else can stay slient without being bullied into confessing.

If we don't have such a right or admissibility is not contingent on voluntariness, then by all means a confession can be extorted through any means necessary.

The McAreveavy trial in Mauritius is interesting. If I were the family member of the victim of crime, I would want a proper investigation and proper proof that the person charged did the deed. I would not be happy with a co-erced confession.

Likewise, if I were the family member of the victim of crime, I wouldn't want to appear accused of the offence simply because the cops bullied a confession out of me as I am of a fragile disposition.

Plus, if you take away the safety net of getting a confession from the gardai, they will have to go out and get other forms of more reliable evidence.

johnnyskeleton

Zambia wrote: »

How can you be sure ?

If you do not know the name of one person the Gardai did this to how can you be sure.

72 Hour interview .... Thats some Overtime bill

They have the power to detain people for these periods. It's the law you see.

I never said a 72 hour interview, I said detained for those periods and constantly interviewed. I'm not sure if you are trying to be clever here or score points or what.

In terms of overtime, different gardai carry out the different interview and there will be different members in charge.

But I don't want to go around in circles. If you want to suggest that people aren't regularly detained for periods up to 72 hours (or 7 days under the drug trafficking legislation) then I can't really convince you otherwise.

seb65

Zambia wrote: »

How can you be sure ?

If you do not know the name of one person the Gardai did this to how can you be sure.

72 Hour interview .... Thats some Overtime bill

Seriously? Legislation allows for detainment of 24, 48, 72 and longer. Look at the Offences Against the State Act. It's rife with them. In fact, I believe that someone may be detained for as long as a week. However, the Gardai do have to apply to keep them up through the chain of command for each subsequent detention at the expiration of each time period.

Detainees do have to be given breaks of 8 hours within every 24 hours, but they are free to waive it.

A Primal Nut

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I've never been able to get a good answer why. To my mind its pretty suspect. You're a single person probably frightened with little understanding of whats going on v 2 or possibly more people with years of experience and training. The fact that some interviews aren't even taped also worries me. Personally I think they should be video-taped for the entire duration of custody.

I suppose there is an argument for if 'you've nothing to hide' but I'm not a fan of that in the adversarial system - which, I personally believe, begins the moment you are arrested.

If you are innocent you have even more reason to say nothing. Whenever you read of someone who was wrongly convicted the suspicions usually began during the initial police interviews; because they contradicted themselves, the police tricked them into saying the wrong thing, etc; things which are later brought into court and used against them. There is also the possibility of them using one of the contradictions to rope you into making a confession. I imagine if you stay completely quiet there is less chance of them convincing you to sign a false confession; even under extreme pressure.

Another common tactic is for the detective to make up a witness or some other evidence, so that they can tell the suspect that they know he was in such a place, for example, thus putting the suspect under pressure to change his story and lie. These are actually good strategies by detectives that usually lead to the real suspect admitting things he otherwise wouldn't. However in the case of an innocent suspect (who isn't very knowledgeable of the legal side of things), it may lead them to change their true story and lie, in order to accomodate the police's story.

Amanda Knox springs to mind - if she knew she was a suspect and refused to say anything from the beginning the case never would have got near court. Most of the supposed evidence came from things she said after the murder.

Not saying this happens in Ireland, but I've heard it happen around the world especially in high-profile cases where the detectives are under a lot of pressure for a quick arrest.

It's absolutely crazy that an unrecorded confession can be used as evidence. In fact any confession that is later withdrawn is useless.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/False_Confessions__Recording_Of_Custodial_Interrogations.php

In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.

theAwakening

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I've never been able to get a good answer why. To my mind its pretty suspect. You're a single person probably frightened with little understanding of whats going on v 2 or possibly more people with years of experience and training. The fact that some interviews aren't even taped also worries me. Personally I think they should be video-taped for the entire duration of custody.

I suppose there is an argument for if 'you've nothing to hide' but I'm not a fan of that in the adversarial system - which, I personally believe, begins the moment you are arrested.

Realistically, the majority of people detained under s4, and particularly s.30 are far from fragile and scared. They can be violent people, well schooled in the commission of crimel, evading justice, and intimidating witnesses in the book of evidence. They know exactly wat not to say in interview from the outset. Most of the s.30 investigations wud inolve, by their nature, hardened criminals who, mostly, will say nothing. Just because that suspect declines to answer a question once, should not mean the gardai must abandon that specific line of questioing immediately and find other evidence, although corroborative evidence is obviously ideal. S.30 detentions cannot be regarded as a genteel encounter. Methods of questioning should be appropriate to the subject interviewed. This is solidified by case lawwed.

Any decent skin who happens to find themselves the subject of an investigation into an arrestable offence will generally have the decency to make a voluntary admission without arrest and be dealt with by adult Caution where appropriate
.

Procrastastudy

theAwakening wrote: »

Realistically, the majority of people detained under s4, and particularly s.30 are far from fragile and scared. They can be violent people, well schooled in the commission of crimel, evading justice, and intimidating witnesses in the book of evidence. They know exactly wat not to say in interview from the outset. Most of the s.30 investigations wud inolve, by their nature, hardened criminals who, mostly, will say nothing. Just because that suspect declines to answer a question once, should not mean the gardai must abandon that specific line of questioing immediately and find other evidence, although corroborative evidence is obviously ideal. S.30 detentions cannot be regarded as a genteel encounter. Methods of questioning should be appropriate to the subject interviewed. This is solidified by case lawwed.

Any decent skin who happens to find themselves the subject of an investigation into an arrestable offence will generally have the decency to make a voluntary admission without arrest and be dealt with by adult Caution where appropriate
.

That does appear to be a good reason for everyone to keep stumm until they have taken advice given the system is designed to, at least, attempt to break even those who know it extremely well.

Finnbar01

The whole interview process is gamed up against you.


You do not have any experience of being interrogated, the Gardaí on the other hand do.

You are on your own with no support whatsoever.

You are nervous and agitated, the gardaí will know that and play on it.

You may make a genuine mistake in your answers, therefore hanging yourself. The gardaí can make mistakes as often as they want. Blatantly lying to you if they think that will lead to a confession.

You do not know about the law, the gardaí do.

You should never go into something when you are at a major disadvantage.

Our man in Havana

Pick a spot on the wall and stare at it.

Strawberry Fields

At the end of the day the guards wave a charge sheet in front of you say sign this and you can go home and most people do, district or circuit court offences, they then turn up at the court room with the rest of the charges on the day. At which time you've bothered with a solicitor or free legal aid.

Finnbar01

Finnbar01 wrote: »

You should never go into something when you are at a major disadvantage.

exactly. dont go doing the crime if you're not willing to do the time.

SuperInfinity

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Another common tactic is for the detective to make up a witness or some other evidence, so that they can tell the suspect that they know he was in such a place, for example, thus putting the suspect under pressure to change his story and lie. These are actually good strategies by detectives that usually lead to the real suspect admitting things he otherwise wouldn't.

I hate this fact that the police can lie whenever they want, including when someone is under interrogation. It makes me lose respect for the police in general. You cannot trust anything they say, so they cannot tell you anything that has any meaning. Even some kind of deal like "we'll leave you alone if..." can just be thrown out in a second, so that is why I never have any respect for police and would never agree to a plea deal without a solicitor present and preferably a contract written up.

Not that I'm against copying the US legal system in general... can you imagine the mess the Irish government would make of things if they tried implementing their own ideas.

SuperInfinity

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I hate this fact that the police can lie whenever they want, including when someone is under interrogation. It makes me lose respect for the police in general. You cannot trust anything they say, so they cannot tell you anything that has any meaning. Even some kind of deal like "we'll leave you alone if..." can just be thrown out in a second, so that is why I never have any respect for police and would never agree to a plea deal without a solicitor present and preferably a contract written up.

Not that I'm against copying the US legal system in general... can you imagine the mess the Irish government would make of things if they tried implementing their own ideas.

what is your opinion of a lie, 'we know you did it' is this a lie?
seriously gardai are there to investigate crimes. if you are the victim of a crime and the gardai turned around to you and told you that they couldnt ask the suspect anything, because,
1. they may have been stretching the truth a little.
2. they couldnt possibly ask the suspect the same question (albeit in a diff form) more than once!

you, as a victim, would be happy enough with this would you??

look, at the end of the day, gardai are there to investigate crime, put the facts as they have been shown together in a file, for the DPP to prosecute.

if you have committed a crime, but have a reasonable explanation as to why you did it, why wouldnt you tell the garda??

one example, a priest (or other clergy member) is assaulted by you, you get arrested for same, is it not a reasonable defence for you to say when questioned that that same person assaulted you (sexually or not ) for years?? ( i realise this is prob bad example, but first thing that came into my head)

all evidence is put into garda files. any defence you have is also put into any file that is sent to DPP.

SuperInfinity

lol. The police can tell you something that is completely false in all ways, not stretching the truth. Now you might ask me "but what is 'all ways'?" or "who defines 'all ways'", but that is more a nihilist discussion on language rather than a discussion on legalities.

spud_gunner

Finnbar01 wrote: »

The whole interview process is gamed up against you.


You do not have an experience of being interrogated, the Gardaí on the other hand do.

You are on your own with no support whatsoever.

You are nervous and agitated, the gardaí will know that and play on it.

You may make a genuine mistake in your answers, therefore hanging yourself. The gardaí can make mistakes as often as they want. Blatantly lying to you if they think that will lead to a confession.

You do not know about the law, the gardaí do.

You should never go into something when you are at a major disadvantage.

i once spent four hours being questioned by police for a crime i didnt commit but i was well prepared in advance , my solicitor told me to pick a spot on the wall and not move from it , i never opened my mouth from start to finish

one of the cops asked the questions while the other gave me the thousand yard stare for three quaters of an hour each time

Procrastastudy

I think we lose sight of the fact that it's an adversarial system - One the one hand the Gardai are the devil's spawn for going in too hard and infringing civil rights. On the other hand if it was my gaff robbed, me assaulted or my family member raped I'm want them to string the guy up by his...

In all honesty that's the way it should be, the way that works best. In that system you are well advised to level the playing field as much as possible innocent or guilty.

spud_gunner

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I think we lose sight of the fact that it's an adversarial system - One the one hand the Gardai are the devil's spawn for going in too hard and infringing civil rights. On the other hand if it was my gaff robbed, me assaulted or my family member raped I'm want them to string the guy up by his...

In all honesty that's the way it should be, the way that works best. In that system you are well advised to level the playing field as much as possible innocent or guilty.

this isnt a perfect world and the police act differently towards different people , they are not beyond subjective action

fasttalkerchat

godeas16 wrote: »

You have a constitutionally guaranteed right to silence. Privilege against self incrimination. Whether they can question prior to you having a solicitor is conflicting some European authorities suggest no whereas they might get away with it here, I'm sure someone else will elaborate.

Do you not have to give Name, address and DOB?
Also if you're driving you have to show your licence.

spud_gunner

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Do you not have to give Name, address and DOB?
Also if you're driving you have to show your licence.

not sure but providing those details makes no difference , i wouldnt resist from doing so

Procrastastudy

spud_gunner wrote: »

this isnt a perfect world and the police act differently towards different people , they are not beyond subjective action

I have no idea what that means.

SuperInfinity

He means acting on feeling rather than facts and hard evidence. Police do it all the time, size you up, stare at you, it's like a game to them. In reality all criminal profiling (even done by the greatest experts in the field) is notoriously unreliable and some think the whole thing is a crock.

spud_gunner

SuperInfinity wrote: »

He means acting on feeling rather than facts and hard evidence. Police do it all the time, size you up, stare at you, it's like a game to them. In reality all criminal profiling (even done by the greatest experts in the field) is notoriously unreliable and some think the whole thing is a crock.

not just that , how willing police are to act often depends on who is making the complaint and who is being complained about

whiteonblu

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Often the police do not have enough to secure a conviction and need a confession to seal the deal. You are not obliged to help them convict you.

and you should never ever trust what they say when questioning you

whiteonblu

A Primal Nut wrote: »

If you are innocent you have even more reason to say nothing. Whenever you read of someone who was wrongly convicted the suspicions usually began during the initial police interviews; because they contradicted themselves, the police tricked them into saying the wrong thing, etc; things which are later brought into court and used against them. There is also the possibility of them using one of the contradictions to rope you into making a confession. I imagine if you stay completely quiet there is less chance of them convincing you to sign a false confession; even under extreme pressure.

Another common tactic is for the detective to make up a witness or some other evidence, so that they can tell the suspect that they know he was in such a place, for example, thus putting the suspect under pressure to change his story and lie. These are actually good strategies by detectives that usually lead to the real suspect admitting things he otherwise wouldn't. However in the case of an innocent suspect (who isn't very knowledgeable of the legal side of things), it may lead them to change their true story and lie, in order to accomodate the police's story.

Amanda Knox springs to mind - if she knew she was a suspect and refused to say anything from the beginning the case never would have got near court. Most of the supposed evidence came from things she said after the murder.

Not saying this happens in Ireland, but I've heard it happen around the world especially in high-profile cases where the detectives are under a lot of pressure for a quick arrest.

It's absolutely crazy that an unrecorded confession can be used as evidence. In fact any confession that is later withdrawn is useless.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/False_Confessions__Recording_Of_Custodial_Interrogations.php

In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.

read about colin stagg

Oh My God since Wednesday