• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ISIS teenager wants to come home

Swaying the jury

Link to the Draycott Browne firm of solicitors: "Choosing to remain silent during questioning can hurt your defence, and should only be done with clear justification...The jury will decide whether it is fair to hold the accused accountable for their failure to answer, give evidence or testify. This will not be enough to prove the defendant’s guilt, but may sway the jury’s judgement towards a conviction."
 
Last edited:
journal article covering this topic

link
In the Journal of Law and Criminology, Gregory O'Reilly wrote, "Major's new law will curtail the right to silence by allowing judges and jurors to draw adverse inferences when a suspect remains silent. It is the latest in a series of similar proposals by English police and politicians,9 and it adopts restrictions on the right to silence which Parliament imposed on Northern Ireland in 1988.10 The new law contains four parts: (1) judges and jurors may draw adverse inferences when suspects do not tell the police during interrogation a fact relied upon by the defense at trial if, under the circumstances, the suspect could have been expected to mention the fact; (2) if the accused does not testify, judges and prosecutors may invite the jury to make any inference which to them appears proper-including the "common sense" inference that there is no explanation for the evidence produced against the accused and that the accused is guilty;" (3) judges and jurors may draw an adverse inference when suspects fail to respond to police questions about any suspicious objects, substances, or marks which are found on their persons or clothing or in the place where they were arrested; and (4) judges and jurors may draw adverse inferences if suspects do not explain to the police why they were present at a place at or about the time of the offense for which they were arrested.12"

The "common sense" inference is particularly troubling. Let me also remind everyone of what a lawyer with over twenty years experience at Guantanamo said with respect to SIAC, which I quoted upthread.
 
Last edited:
SIAC

Clive Stafford Smith wrote, "In SIAC, the “Special Advocate” can do no such thing [see secret evidence and discuss it within limits, with his client], and is cut off from the client. All the more so for Shamima, who is stuck in what we have long called “Guantánamo on the Euphrates”: she has never met any of her lawyers, and was not allowed to provide any evidence herself."
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
That entire list just reinforces my perception of disingenuity. The fact that such a list is presented as evidence that the right to silence isn't functionally abrogated in the UK, seems to me to stack disingenuity on disingenuity.
Click to expand...

I'm going to need to read up. There are supposed to be safeguards but rereading I am less clear how strong those safeguards are.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
link
In the Journal of Law and Criminology, Gregory O'Reilly wrote, "Major's new law will curtail the right to silence by allowing judges and jurors to draw adverse inferences when a suspect remains silent. It is the latest in a series of similar proposals by English police and politicians,9 and it adopts restrictions on the right to silence which Parliament imposed on Northern Ireland in 1988.10 The new law contains four parts: (1) judges and jurors may draw adverse inferences when suspects do not tell the police during interrogation a fact relied upon by the defense at trial if, under the circumstances, the suspect could have been expected to mention the fact; (2) if the accused does not testify, judges and prosecutors may invite the jury to make any inference which to them appears proper-including the "common sense" inference that there is no explanation for the evidence produced against the accused and that the accused is guilty;" (3) judges and jurors may draw an adverse inference when suspects fail to respond to police questions about any suspicious objects, substances, or marks which are found on their persons or clothing or in the place where they were arrested; and (4) judges and jurors may draw adverse inferences if suspects do not explain to the police why they were present at a place at or about the time of the offense for which they were arrested.12"

The "common sense" inference is particularly troubling. Let me also remind everyone of what a lawyer with over twenty years experience at Guantanamo said with respect to SIAC, which I quoted upthread.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, which is one of the main reasons why I've never supported and always been against the changes. What the comments I have made in this thread are about the claim that we do not have a right to silence, we do, and it is wrong to suggest we don't, and I actually think it is dangerous to civil liberty to use that type of wording. Citizens should know that you do not have to say anything to the police in an investigation at anytime, including being stopped by the police in the street when you were being law abiding. We know that still even with the likes of PACE the police do willfully misinform people of their rights by word and deed, hopefully the fuller adoption of body cams, detention desk cameras they will learn they can't but until we have much much better police for a start then we all need to know our rights, one of which is a right to silence.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there are plenty of threads for discussion of the UK's stance on the right to silence, and probably some on "why the UK sucks and America is much better". This thread, however, is supposed to be about Shamima Begum. When you guys feel like discussing the actual topic, I'll return to the thread.
 
Illegal

Clive Stafford Smith wrote, "Shamima had her passport simply taken away from her. In her first case, the Supreme Court said that the government was not rendering her stateless since she could claim Bangladeshi citizenship. This was risible, given that she has never been there: she was born in the UK, and the Bangladeshi government assured us that she “would be hanged if she entered the country.”" Elsewhere he referred to stripping her of her passport as illegal.
 
politicians doing what they do best

Wudang said:
He misreads the law. As I have repeatedly shown all that is required by UK law is that the Home Secretary is "satisfied" she will not be stateless.
Click to expand...
Here is the quote* from The Guardian: “It is also sad to see Sajid Javid trying to better his chances of becoming prime minister by illegally stripping her of her passport, rather than maturely focusing on the needs of a helpless infant who might have been rescued." I wish that he had expanded on this point, but he is a human rights lawyer with over twenty years of experience concerning Guantanamo. He cofounded Reprieve. I am surprised that a politician would play to a crowd.
EDT *The person being quoted is Clive Stafford Smith.
 
Last edited:
more on the SAIC

"The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is not for the faint-hearted. It sees secret evidence not seen by the person whose case it is considering or her lawyers. The special advocate who presents her case in those secret proceedings advances arguments she and her lawyers will never hear, and without her instructions or those of her lawyers on that evidence. Therefore when the Commission concludes, “The Commission has found this to have been a case of great concern and difficulty” [paragraph 411] those words are to be taken very seriously." link

"There have also been ongoing questions about the extent – if at all – to which the Home Secretary’s original decision to deprive Ms Begum of her UK citizenship complies with national and international law. Indeed, many experts in international law were quick to suggest in 2019 that the measure was illegal." link.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Clive Stafford Smith wrote, "Shamima had her passport simply taken away from her. In her first case, the Supreme Court said that the government was not rendering her stateless since she could claim Bangladeshi citizenship. This was risible, given that she has never been there: she was born in the UK, and the Bangladeshi government assured us that she “would be hanged if she entered the country.”" Elsewhere he referred to stripping her of her passport as illegal.
Click to expand...

I remember a lot of discussion about this earlier in the thread. She has been rendered stateless in practice, regardless of what theoretical rights she has to Bangladeshi citizenship. It seems clear that international law prohibiting making someone stateless is meant to ensure that they can actually claim citizenship of a state and reside there, otherwise it is rather pointless.
 
no longer even an option

theprestige said:
The UK government: "We cannot possibly send Julian Assange to the US without a promise they will not execute him."

Also the UK government: "If Bangladesh wants to execute Shamima Begum, that's none of our business."
Click to expand...
IIUC once she turned 21, she became no longer eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh, whatever the consequences.
 
Yes. This is something a number of people regard as being a problem with the law as it was written. She had de jure but not de facto citizenship of Bangladesh until she reached a certain age. This allowed the UK Home Secretary to say he “was satisfied “ he was not making her stateless. However she was unable or unwilling (I don’t know) to apply for. Bangladeshi citizenship in time so her de jure citizenship lapsed, never happened , whatever. Bangladesh did not make her stateless, she just did not apply in time. Since the UK law is written in terms of the HS’s satisfaction it’s all legal under UK law.
I can’t really comment on international law as I only go by what has been decided in court. Note also that the Supreme Court decision was on grounds for appeal as raised by her lawyers. Whether other grounds may apply I don’t know.
 
Wudang said:
He misreads the law. As I have repeatedly shown all that is required by UK law is that the Home Secretary is "satisfied" she will not be stateless.
Click to expand...

Partly true.
The decision can be challenged in court, and then it becomes more than just the satisfaction of the HS.
Abu Hamza won his appeal, because stripping him of British citizenship would have left him stateless.
The decision of the HS can be overturned by the courts, if it is shown to be illegal or unfounded.
 
theprestige said:
The UK government: "We cannot possibly send Julian Assange to the US without a promise they will not execute him."

Also the UK government: "If Bangladesh wants to execute Shamima Begum, that's none of our business."
Click to expand...

The British government is not trying to send Begum to Bangladesh.
Furthermore, Bangladesh wants to kill Begum without any kind of trial, and without any kind of evidence, just because they want to. Not one person here seems willing to condemn that decision.
I cannot comment on the murderous instincts of what passes for a justice system in America. I'm sure you think it's better than the British one, and I'm very happy for you. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom