Legal C

legalclaret.bsky.social

13 October 2026 19:52

Kate is right to be irritated, because the use of the modern caution incorrectly stated the law in 1952, and would have lead the solicitor to remark “goodness me what do you mean officer. My client can say nothing and it has no impact whatsoever on their defence. Pipe down you silly policeman”.

Legal C

legalclaret.bsky.social

13 October 2026 19:52

Have been raised in the police station all those months (now years!) ago. Consequently, the jury are entitled to draw an inference from not answering. This has been the position ever since. That same caution was read out in police stations across the land, and solicitors advised their clients.

Legal C

legalclaret.bsky.social

13 October 2026 19:52

You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. The first and last bit are very similar. The middle bit is very different:

Legal C

legalclaret.bsky.social

13 October 2026 19:52

It tells the suspect that while there is no compulsion to answer questions, and no sanction for refusing to do so (unlike say the SFO’s powers under s2 of the CJA 1987), going “no comment” may have consequences. A judge can mention to the jury that a defence presented in court could reasonably

Leg Spinner🏏

judeet44.bsky.social

13 October 2026 19:50

Damn, the fish pie I made was too salty. I ate about half of it anyway because I couldn't be arsed to start cooking something else. I'll now be topping up on fluids all night. Annoyed.