Obviously we can't "take the fifth" since we don't share the US constitution, but we do have a right to silence when you're the defendant in typical criminal proceedings and you can't be held in contempt for that silence. However there is no right to silence for example during investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, or when requiring disclosure of encryption keys under RIPA. However in the case of a SFO investigation, if they then want to charge you criminally, you have the right to silence and they can't use evidence you've been compelled to give previously. The RIPA stuff is bullshit and is widely considered overreach but the powers that be really don't want to change it for obvious reasons.

In criminal proceedings, you have a right to silence - however in limited, defined situations, adverse inferences can be drawn from that silence. Adverse influences can't be drawn until you've had the opportunity to seek legal advice, so the advice to shut up and ask for a lawyer still stands.

The cases where adverse influences can be drawn are things like refusing to answer why you were in a particular place at the time of arrest and for example only coming up with an answer days later or even at court. Your lawyer will of course advise you what you need to answer.

That said, irrespective of what the law says and how the judge directs the jury, nothing can stop them drawing adverse influences from whatever they want to draw adverse influences from. So it's possibly worth considering that when deciding to remain silent.

The UK right to silence is pretty well summarised in the modern wording of the police caution: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Staying silent is not obstruction of justice or contempt of court. No one is ever required to respond to questioning. But it might lose you credibility in court of you produce an alibi or other defence at trial that you didn't mention during questioning.

The only exception is passwords and encryption keys, which have to be supplied if a court order is obtained and aren't considered testimony.

The reason for the change (AIUI) was due to the arrest of IRA dissidents who remained silent and then produced alibis in court that would have been easy to dispel at the time but were not so easily dismissed in court, once they had gathered support from their communities.

Incidentally, the 1994 act also banned music containing "repetitive beats" and legalised anal sex between heterosexual couples, albeit with a number of caveats and conditions.

More info is available at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Or...

I do not know what edge cases the addition of "But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." was meant to protect against, and how, but it is absolutely nowhere near obstruction of justice or contempt of court.

Technically this is true. If you make a statement to the police, then that statement can be used as evidence at trial (both against you and in your defence). If you don’t make a statement, then the only way to get your testimony in front of the jury (should that be necessary), is to take the stand, where you will be subjected to cross examination. A process where you (probably not a lawyer) will have to argue with a lawyer who will be doing their best to make you trip over every single thing you say, in front of a jury, for a number of hours.

So while it does potentially have a benefit, it’s still always a bad idea, because you’ll want to see the discovery before you say anything at all.

Your explanation for the UK police caution phrasing makes perfect sense, but I wonder now if it's not meant to scare people into talking?

I don’t know the motives of putting that in the warning. But it is at least true, even if it’s almost universally not a good idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/20/...

> implicate

FTFY

For starters the prosecution isn't trying to scare people into a plea bargain. Many places the police aren't allowed to lie to you.

And many places the police can be called to testify on your behalf.

People talk all of the time without lawyers, thinking lawyering up might make them look guilty.

> The shock and surprise of the accused was palpable from the transcript and believeable.

In the US, the cops try very hard to question you (for hours) without one. And while there is a public defender system, it doesn't usually provide a competent lawyer.

This is well documented in the (very readable) book "The Secret Barrister". https://thesecretbarrister.com/

The author claims that the cuts are not even cost-effective, often leading to more spending by government to deal with the consequences.

Public defenders also get far less resources than prosecutors.

But what actually happens is that the system makes them incompetent simply being in the job. For example, the caseload is too high, which means that they cannot spend the time a paid lawyer would spend on it. Folks also get little choice in which of these cases they take and which they do not. On top of all of this, they are working in a system stacked against them and they usually aren't getting paid much.

"I'm asserting my 5th amendment right to silence not because I believe I have done anything wrong but because anything I say can and will be used against me in a court of law"

But the usual advice of - don't say a damn thing until you have legal representation still stands.

It seems somewhat reasonable to me - if you have an alibi then you should tell that to the Police as soon as practical. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.

Do not take this advice. Talk to a lawyer.

If you have an alibi, you can tell your alibi to a lawyer, and your lawyer can communicate your alibi to the police before you go to trial. You won't be wasting anyone's time, you'll just be giving the police the same evidence through someone who is trained to talk to police officers, and isn't going to accidentally say something that's misinterpreted or twisted to turn your life into a nightmare.

If you are being suspected of a crime, it doesn't matter if you're innocent -- the police are not your friends.

It is a fact full stop that a jury can hold it against you if you unreasonably delay giving important information - it's not my opinion.

You should not sit down and talk to the police unless your lawyer is sitting directly next to you. Ideally, your lawyer should contact the police on your behalf with your alibi and you should never directly talk to them.

We can't realistically keep a jury from holding that against you the same way that we can't realistically keep a jury from randomly misinterpreting the law, or convicting someone just because they're black -- but we make it clear to them that they're really not supposed to. And the risk from talking to the police without a lawyer present is much higher than the risk of a jury punishing you for exercising your 5th Amendment rights -- you should err on trusting a jury to do the right thing more than you should err on trusting a prosecutor to do the right thing.

No we don't in the UK.

So the basic advice not to talk to the police holds.

It is unreasonable to expect a person to know the detailed workings of the legal system. It is therefore unreasonable for there to be any negative consequences whatsoever for waiting until there is a legal expert present.

You don't need to be a legal expert to answer basic questions from a Police officer about did you do something or were you in a location at a time. They aren't lawyers either! And I didn't say you couldn't ask for a lawyer and wait for one to turn up before answering...

But if they charge you for speeding, and then you wait six months until the trial, and claim only at that point that you weren't the one driving. Come on... that's a waste of society's time.

Their job is to collect evidence and send it to the prosecutor. They're given wide latitude to collect it as quickly as possible, and while law enforcement and the public attorney's offices are by and large just trying to see justice done fairly, they're almost always understaffed and over-pressured.

People act weird in pressure situations. Law enforcement personnel deal with law breaking every day, but the rest of us don't. If you're innocent and confronted with an accusation of a crime, in your resulting heightened emotional state, you don't want to say something stupid or in a way that makes you look unnecessarily suspicious.

In this situation it should be ok for you to not answer questions, wait until your involuntary adrenaline reaction wears off, and then have a conversation about it.

I don't think it is if you know someone else committed the offence and they are still out there, potentially still offending.

If you know the identity of a rapist, saying 'I'm not going to talk to the Police until convenient for me' is a rotten attitude.

Wrong. In interviews, the police can (and do) lie, lead, present circumstantial evidence as smoking guns, etc. They are not lawyers, but they are well versed in the law. They are also in all probability more experienced in asking questions and interviewing than you are, even if you're smarter than them.

Everything you say to the police can and will literally be used against you. When you speak, even if you're innocent, you give up the biggest advantage you have. ANY inconsistencies will be used against you. Words can be given uncharitably during trial. They police WILL ASK YOU QUESTIONS that a prosecutor WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to ask in a trial (speculation, leading, etc), but if you answer the police it can be used in a trial and will in all likelihood be recorded. Ever listen to yourself later and cringe? Yeah.

Even if you present a consistent story from police interview to trial, you can't even use that consistency to your benefit, but the prosecutor can use the inconsistencies against you. Your silence can't be mentioned during a trial. It cannot be used against you.

Look, if it's a speeding ticket by all means talk to the police. If saw a criminal running away, tell the police what direction they headed.

If you've been detained or are in any way at risk of it, call a laywer.

I didn't say don't.

And in the UK, what you don't say can be used against you.

> it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court

Is it accurate to say that it actually can't be used in your favor, or that it simply won't be?

I am not a solicitor of course.

Lol that isn't what I said, is it?

These days it doesn't seem to apply to non-union workers, unfortunately -- which is like reason #93 to want a union.

HR's normal functions like hiring, compensation, benefits, transfers, etc are fine to talk about.

And you may also do great things, and help do awesome corporate projects.

But first and foremost, your employment is a bet by the company that your usefulness will outweigh your potential minefields.

HR would be a legal liability if I came to them with problems, they didn't help me and it would later lead to something like depression or burnout causing me to be unable to work because of it. That's a much bigger risk than whatever legal liability you have in mind.

Of course I am a cost center and my employment is that bet by the company, but that's beside the point. Good working conditions increase the chance of that bet being in the money.

/s