I can't read the article to see if it's mentioned but a reminder that Arconic employees have refused to give evidence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54792111

From the article:

> Three French and one German employee of Arconic say they might breach a law in France which prevents evidence being given to proceedings abroad.

> The law in question is known informally as the French Blocking Statute.

Maybe a French HN member can give us more info on this law.

French citizens and headquartered corporations cannot answer a foreign justice request concerning some things (pretty much everything as the wording is vague) without refering it first to the french government. Failing to do so exposes to fines and possibily jail.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000501326/...

"Loi n° 68-678 du 26 juillet 1968 relative à la communication de documents et renseignements d'ordre économique, commercial, industriel, financier ou technique à des personnes physiques ou morales étrangères"

The law mentions that it is forbidden to do so "sous réserve" (not sure how to translate that, "without prejudice" ?) of international treaties. I'd be surprised if there were no such treaty between France and the UK, or if it wasn't part of the EU treaty.

Thanks!

It was a way to fight industrial espionage from countries (well, mostly one) where judges were very enthusiastic about getting documents containing some industrial secrets from French companies.

I wonder if in the long run that will make them easier to prosecute &/or sue. Certainly hope so

In the US, refusing to give evidence (taking the fifth) can be used against you in a civil suit, but it cannot be used against you criminally. If you’re facing civil and criminal liability at the same time, this puts you in a tough situation, since protecting yourself from criminal liability might increase your civil exposure.

I believe in the UK refusing to give evidence might be worse, both because they have a whole different model of courts (inquisitive vs. adversarial), and because the underpinnings of US legal rights stem from a perceived short coming of the British court system.

Yes, the UK police caution is "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."

Adverse inferences can be made in court.

Our system of courts is at base very similar to the US, and is adversarial. The only significant parts which aren't are the coroner's courts which investigate deaths using an inquisitorial process.

[Edit: we also sometimes have public enquiries, sometimes headed by judges, but these aren't courts as such: there are no civil penalties or criminal punishments as a direct result of the enquiry]

Our procedural rights are mostly similar too (we have corrected most of the abuses since the 18th Century). Your right to silence is qualified, though, and has been since the 1990s. Basically, you can't remain silent during questioning and then run a 'surprise' defence: so if you're going to claim an alibi at trial, you can't wait until the trial has started to mention it. If you do, the magistrates or jury are allowed to draw adverse inferences from your earlier silence.

I don't much like this change. I don't know how much of a difference it makes in practice; there aren't ongoing campaigns by defence lawyers to have it overturned, for example.

Corporate witnesses who do testify are immune from having their own admissions used against them in a criminal proceeding. Though it’s worth noting things said about others can be used against said others.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grenfell-towe...