To think Prince Andrew needs to stop being bewildered and...

[chaoticisatroll55]

get himself over to the States to account for his actions and to give evidence for those poor victims of abuse. He's a bloody disgrace.

If you choose to exercise your right to speech in the UK, the judge will tell the jury you have something to hide.
Is this true?
Does it actually happen?
I'd love to see a transcript of a trial where this happened (honest questions BTW - not doubting your word).

That doesn’t affect your right to say nothing at all though.

No, but there may be consequences in the UK. It may come back to bite you in the bum. Under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, the change was that inferences can be drawn about a person's guilt from their silence.

So while you can remain silent, your silence can be used against you in court and may result in harming your defence. There may be a consequence to remaining silent in the UK which is different to the US.

Bit of a derail, though.

So while you can remain silent, your silence can be used against you in court and may result in harming your defence. There may be a consequence to remaining silent in the UK which is different to the US.
I thought the point was that - as it says in the caution "you fail to mention when questioned, something which you later rely on" - in other words staying 100% silent wouldn't make any difference - but suddenly chirping up about something in court that you didn't mention before could harm your defence.

I've asked another poster to clarify what judges actually say in these circumstances as they claimed judges do direct a jury to draw conclusions from silence.

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. They are totally different scenarios.

For me, what they have to do with each other is they're both examples of individuals who the countries concerned would like to cooperate in the justice system and might want to convict. I assume nobody thinks these two are going to be the last examples of a well connected British citizen being of interest to the US authorities and vice versa. So there would be benefit to both countries in establishing a situation where there has to be quid pro quo in the event of potentially embarrassing extraditions. That, in the long term, would serve the interests of justice better than it not being a two way street. I think that's what people are getting at.

@Cailleach1

That doesn’t affect your right to say nothing at all though.

No, but there may be consequences in the UK. It may come back to bite you in the bum. Under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, the change was that inferences can be drawn about a person's guilt from their silence.

So while you can remain silent, your silence can be used against you in court and may result in harming your defence. There may be a consequence to remaining silent in the UK which is different to the US.

Bit of a derail, though.

I don't really consider a fundamental shift to the dynamics of criminal justice in the UK a "derail", personally. Especially as it may affect the fact of Prince Andrew giving evidence in the UK.

If we assume the FBI did decided to kowtow to the British Royal Family (never gonna happen) and fly out to blighty to interview him, then anything he says would need to be available to UK law enforcement, under UK law.

Or, to reverse the situation, can you imagine a US citizen being interviewed by the Met in the US, with US law enforcement being told "you can't use whatever was said, even if it concerns offences on US soil" ?

No, I can't either (not a single bit of it, actually).

My derail mention was in reference to me.

Here is a concise page from The Crown Prosecution Service on adverse inferences; for those interested.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/adverse-inferences

Spokesman for Andrew (not gossip), says he's more than happy to answer any questions the FBI want to pose but they just aren't asking him

To borrow that old quote "well he would say that wouldn't he?"
For all I know some may actually believe he's not been asked, but even if the FBI produced a written request as proof, does anyone really imagine that would prod Andrew into cooperation while mummy's there to cover him?

Thanks Zombie. I get what you are saying.

In the case of the 5th amendment, what would happen if you exercise that right when questioned by the police and then later in court come up with a cock and bull story reason, would your initial silence be disregarded, or would the fact that you remained silent initially be considered suspect by the jury? Sorry if this is off topic, but in the PA case might become relevant if pigs fly he is tried in a US court.

@UmbrellaHat

In the case of the 5th amendment, what would happen if you exercise that right when questioned by the police and then later in court come up with a cock and bull story reason, would your initial silence be disregarded, or would the fact that you remained silent initially be considered suspect by the jury? Sorry if this is off topic, but in the PA case might become relevant if pigs fly he is tried in a US court.

This will be a deep trench of US constitutional law ...

My understanding is that (depending on the exact jurisdiction) there is no blanket prohibition on a courts attention being drawn to the pleading of the 5th and a subsequent story. However it's nuanced by the evidence the prosecution brings.

At the end of the day the default position is the accused walks free if the prosecution don't make their case. There's no onus on the defence to prove anything.

However talk of PA being tried is jumping the gun a bit. Currently he is being sought as a witness. And as such his evidence would need to be given in a way that is fair to anyone who subsequently faces a criminal trial. There's a bedrock of US law that simply can't be fudged - the constitution. And that is pretty explicit about people accused of a crime having a right to question their accusers. So for in the case of PA, while it might be nice to have a chat and goss with the nice folks from the FBI, anything they get can't be used in court unless he is also there to verify it.

From memory you can get sworn testimony into a court record, but it's not the norm, and only used when a witness is dead, not playing hide and seek.

So the bottom line is there's fuck all point in the FBI wasting air miles (the irony) to speak to Andrew if they wish to use anything in court.

Thanks Prof!

@DomDoesWotHeWants, you need to watch the Epstein documentary on Netflix, it really does spell it out for you on there

Why on earth are people simple enough to accept a TV programme which set out to 'prove' a point? Can they not realise that if the money people wanted a certain outcome then Netflix would provide it! A Netflix documentary is hardly likely to be evidence in a trial! It's comparable to St Di's Panorama performance, it was taken to be the definitive version of the marriage, not a bitter woman's one-sided version.
Everytime I watch a documentary about the JFK assassination I am convinced, until the next one.

It's funny you should mention JFK, *MrsB - I was about to say the rest of your post reminded me of the film of that name with Kevin Costner

I know people who still think that was an absolutely factual piece ...