>> enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.

In theory, but there are so many exceptions that it isn't really a thing in practice. Driving a car? You have to identify yourself. Crossing a boarder? You are open to total inspection. Using a credit card, your transaction is open to inspection and you need to identify. Called as a witness? You have to participate by answering questions. You can even be imprisoned, for years, as a "material witness" without any hint of accusation. They sometimes do need a "trip through the courts" but that doesn't mean you are going to be part of that trip, or even know about it until after the warrants have been issued. The list of exemptions from the default rules allowing silence are so long as to make them meaningless.

Yes, in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases. During that time, you can be questioned, and if you do not answer, then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt ("why did you not say you were just out walking your dog when first asked?").

> in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases

That's if you've been arrested which doesn't apply in this case. He was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act which allows up to 6 hours of detention without cause and up to an hour without legal advice.

> During that time, ...then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt

I don't believe that's true in the case where legal advice has been restricted by the police. As per PACE Code C. It is however true if you have legal advice or if you've refused legal advice.

Edit: This last bit wrt PACE Code C applies to someone who is arrested. Under Section 7 it can be a criminal offence to not answer the examining officer's questions, as Craig Murray mentioned.

"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."

(The 'Police Caution', see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights )

This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silence. (Although I suspect many juries may be influenced negatively by someone remaining silent, despite direction.)

Except (as I hear it) that's not even true in the US. Apparently, it's not enough to stay silent - you actually have to say that you are exercising the right to be silent, otherwise they are allowed to infer guilt from silence.

In a very similar way, if I were ever detained in this manner in the UK, I'd be very likely to say "I am not refusing right now to answer your questions. However, since I cannot trust you to tell me the truth about my rights and responsibilities, and because of the power imbalance, I will wait until I have independent legal advice before participating any further in this interview".

I think you can politely stick to "I'd like to wait for a lawyer please." Less is more.

Except if questioned under schedule 7 of the terrorism act of 2000, maybe.

IANAL. Ask an actual lawyer for advice!

Even the right to a lawyer has been denied because a judge chose to endorse a police interpretation of "I want a lawyer dawg" as a nonsense request for a dog-attourney.

I think the court does actually take into account why you refuse to answer. If it's "because I was waiting for my lawyer to arrive, and then I answered the question just fine", I'm not sure a court could rightly draw an adverse inference there.

The "we can infer guilt" seems to be more because there's a bunch of corner cases where an absolute right to silence CAN have kind of stupid outcomes. Many countries choose to accept those outcomes because they don't want to convict the innocent. Britain -otoh- seems to try to thread the needle here by giving the judge a bit of leeway.

But I'm not an expert on british law. I just online-searched the the heck out of it.

Under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act you can be detained for up to an hour without access to legal advice. That's very likely why they were so diligent in keeping it to an hour.

My understanding is that Schedule 7 applies at points of entry to the UK, where you have limited rights even as a citizen.

Edit more info from the Scottish police (the institution in question):

https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/how-we-do-it/schedul...

Google Chicago PD blacksites

It's a feature they aren't afraid of ignoring

If the UK authorities are extraordinarily rendering people to Chicago, that would be quite something. Rwanda was bad enough.

Take him to detroit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo