Starts at 19:38 in. Poor sound.



56:53
GG: If I had said "No Comment", that would have been an offence under the Act
and with automatic conviction.

Now, I'm remiss. I'll be honest with you, having sat through in parliament and
opposing and voting against this legislation, I was seriously underestimating
how frightening and damaging it is.

I repeat myself. You are not under arrest, but you are not free to leave. The
Hotel California doesn't come near it. You're not under arrest, but you are not
free to leave. You have no right of silence.

And any failure to answer any or all of our questions is itself an offence.

Under the Terrorism Act, how frightening is that? I mean I appeal to the
public. Imagine that was you.

KW: And if I could just clarify on the back of what George has stated, just
referencing my opening comments - silence of itself cannot convict you per se.

What we're seeing here, saying here is that there is a difference in exercising
your right to silence under Schedule 3 of this legislation compared to
exercising your right to silence under generic substantive or other general
policing investigations.

Specifically, the evidential bar that needs to be cited here by the authorities
is dangerously low - when allied to silence could seriously jeopardise your
liberties. That's the point. And our assessment is that you exercise your right
to remain silent at your peril. To do so could seriously compromise you. And
what each of my clients did here was the appropriate course. They did so without
access to legal advice. And that was a very very significant driving force in
this action and the machinations that were deployed to contrive (is not legal
advice?) is something which was seriously concerning.

As George has highlighted in his earlier conference, he was misled into thinking
that his wife wasn't in the police station and that informed his decision on
access to legal advice.