On Wed,  3 Sep 2008 15:55:17 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>On Sep 3, 11:50 am, "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> wrote:
>> > If you think the law is "very clear cut" on the matter, then
>> > presumably you can cite the statute that says so?
>>
>> > Or at least case law saying so? (although that is rarely "very clear
>> > cut").
>>
>> Like I said in my previous post I believe there is case law on the
>> subject but I have not been able to find it.
>>
>> However the OP pointed me at PACE, which says:
>>
>> "Reasonable grounds for suspicion however cannot be provided
>> retrospectively by such questioning during a person’s detention or by
>> refusal to answer any questions put."
>>
>> There's more in Code A that sets the tone. If the authors of PACE are
>> correct and a police constable cannot get suspicious by refusal to
>> answer questions then it seems unlikely that "any person" can be.
>>
>> To put that another way, there is no general power for the police to
>> require a person going about their business to justify themselves, so
>> why should there be a power for anyone else to?
>>
>> I await the "you're wrong" reply!
>
>You are quite correct. I could not be bothered to trawl PACE for the
>exact paragraph, so thankyou for doing so on my behalf.
>
>As I have said, it is quite absurd that the refusal to cooperate, in
>accordance with your rights, can be interpreted as evidence of an
>offence.

But then nobody has said it could be.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Join the army, meet interesting people, kill them.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

> >As I have said, it is quite absurd that the refusal to cooperate, in
> >accordance with your rights, can be interpreted as evidence of an
> >offence.
>
> But then nobody has said it could be.

You have said it can be taken in combination with other factors as
reasonable grounds for suspicion; I submit that is not correct. Indeed
I submit that it cannot be grounds for suspicion, ever, whether it be
considered alone or considered in combination with any other factor.
That is my definitive statement on the matter, though I am already
aware that we disagree.

On Thu,  4 Sep 2008 01:20:10 +0100, Ste  wrote:

>> >As I have said, it is quite absurd that the refusal to cooperate, in
>> >accordance with your rights, can be interpreted as evidence of an
>> >offence.
>>
>> But then nobody has said it could be.
>
>You have said it can be taken in combination with other factors as
>reasonable grounds for suspicion;

Yes.

But "grounds for suspicion of" is not the same thing as "evidence of".


> I submit that is not correct. Indeed
>I submit that it cannot be grounds for suspicion, ever, whether it be
>considered alone or considered in combination with any other factor.
>That is my definitive statement on the matter, though I am already
>aware that we disagree.

Yes, just slightly. :-)
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Program too small to fit into memory.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom