On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:35:02 GMT someone who may be Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law >the right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of >Privilege and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
This has already been tested in the courts. The person claiming this lost.
In which country? This is a UK group, not a scots or english/welsh or northern irish one.
It may well have been Scotland. However the ECHR applies everywhere.
Yes, but a decision in the Scottish courts does not provide precedent in the English, and vice versa.
Simon Brooke [email hidden] opined the following...
Quoted message said:
Yes, but a decision in the Scottish courts does not provide precedent in the English, and vice versa.
It's OK. The ECHR is only optional and no government is obliged to support it. At least... that's the official excuse for opting out of swathes of it in order to hold various "known terrorists" indefinately without trial.
There's a report in my local paper about a cyclist injured in a collision with a car a few weeks ago. Bike written off and leg injuries to cyclist.
Police have now traced driver 'but cannot take thing further without witnesses'.
While I am sure corroboration is helpful, does the absence of a witness mean nowt will be done?
It's just the usual [censored] to excuse them from doing any sort of investigation. It's not as if they need an independent witness to proceed in the case of any other asssault or offence, although of course a witness would generally help.
Your proposal raises some serious issues on human rights. In UK law the right not to incriminate oneself rests in the concept of Privilege and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the US in the Fifth Amendment. While it may seem satisfying to sweep it aside you tinker with it at your peril. The days of extracting confessions from the defendant under duress are thankfully these days mainly behind us.
Except when it isn't, eg many other motoring offences where there is evidence as to the offence taking place but often no direct proof of the offender's identity.
