PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Criminalisation of Accidents
View Single Post
Old 14th Feb 2008, 07:22
  #87 (permalink)  
Flying Lawyer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a Grunt

My reference to the warning was in the context of statements made to official accident investigators. (Your answers to the specific questions asked by krujje would also apply in the UK.)

The right to silence has not been abolished in the UK. The right has been qualified, but it still exists.
There are some circumstances in which a jury is directed that they may (if they consider it fair) draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence when questioned, but a judge has a discretion to decide whether it would be fair to give such a direction in a particular case.
If he does, the direction contains very strict instructions about the matters about which the jury must be satisfied before they are entitled to draw any adverse inference and, even then, the very limited use they may make of a defendant’s silence even if they consider it fair to draw any adverse conclusion from it.

Where a Defendant was given legal advice to remain silent, the direction includes these or similar words: 'If you consider that the Defendant had or may have had an answer to give, but genuinely and reasonably relied on legal advice to remain silent, you should not draw any conclusion against him.'

I’ve gone into the law as far as I properly can, given the restrictions my job places upon me. For that reason, I’m not going to comment upon whether an official accident investigator would be likely to be regarded by a UK court as a “person in authority.”

In the context of this particular discussion, the more important issue IMHO is whether those questioned by accident investigators would be as co-operative and frank if they feared what they said would or might be used against them in a criminal court.
And, if they wouldn’t, what consequences that would have upon the effectiveness of accident investigation and its primary purpose.

FL



PBL
Just seen your post.
I'm not ignoring it but, as mentioned above, I’ve gone as far as I properly can given the restrictions my job places upon me.
I felt free to discuss the interaction between accident investigation and criminal investigation (and what I see as the potential consequences to flight safety), but I think the time has come for me to withdraw. Frustrating!

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 14th Feb 2008 at 07:42.
Flying Lawyer is offline