On Kit Klarenberg colluding with police in weakening our "Right to Silence".
Posted by Der on June 4, 2023, 10:07 am
Apparently, Klarenberg was threatened with arrest if he didn't answer their questions.
Being "threatened with arrest" is a hollow threat. He should have told 'em to politely "Do your worst" and after that answered "no comment" to each and every question.
We still have a "Right to Silence" in this country. Admittedly, it is somewhat diminished as the police should point out to you when reading the police caution:
"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.”
What really diminishes the right to silence is people not standing up for that right and saying "no comment" at each and every opportunity.
If arrested tell them your name and show proof of address (or have them ring somebody who will verify that you live at that address) so that you can get bail. After that, answer "no comment" all the way. It's strangely liberating!
And if you begin to feel a bit sheepish answering "no comment" for the 250th time imagine how the person on the other end of the question feels.
Jeremy Thorpe, when questioned by police some years ago, gave a brief explanation as to why he would not be answering questions and to each question after that he simply said "Ibid".
If you adopt that approach you'll probably have to explain to the cops what "ibid" means.
I remember once after a few of us broke into Aldermaston to hold a picnic on the runway I had to answer "no comment" for over half an hour. Eventually the guy gave up.
A good thing too - I had nearly reached the end of my tether. I had only about two "no comment"s left in me before I confessed everything.
Apart from colluding in undermining our right to silence this whole thing surely begs the question why was Klarenberg so ill prepared for an arrest. His naivety is most astonishing. Especially for somebody who spends his life poking the so-called powers-that-be in the eye.
Re: On Kit Klarenberg colluding with police in weakening our "Right to Silence".
Yes, I wondered about his not staying silent too. Perhaps having nothing to hide, he thought the police might learn something useful about geopolitical realities. The temptation to inform in a journalist must be quite high, even to six unfriendly policemen. Even if one of them might have actually listened and pondered, that would be a win. .
Re: On Kit Klarenberg colluding with police in weakening our "Right to Silence".
"Perhaps...he thought the police might learn something useful about geopolitical realities. The temptation to inform in a journalist must be quite high, even to six unfriendly policemen. "
Much more likely he was intimidated, & shitting himself which made him too compliant for his own (and his sources) good. "No comment" and "No passwords" would definitely have been the best approach.
Re: On Kit Klarenberg colluding with police in weakening our "Right to Silence".
If they deem you a 'terrorist', any rights you thought you had disappear, which seems to be what they were threatening in this case due to whatever recent authoritarian laws they've introduced. Section 3 of the 2019 border code according to Max Blumenthal. Whether or not this could've applied to Klarenberg (apparently it just pertains to N.Ireland) I'm not sure but 'No comment' can only get you so far if they decide to really go after you. Still, my natural instinct too would've been to keep my mouth shut.
One always has the option to say "No comment". Though different circumstances
A bloke I know on arriving in prison (not jail) replied "no comment" when asked by the prison officer for his date of birth. This was greeted with a punch in the gut.
Prison officers and cops are different breeds.
Police are running riot in the U.K., just like in the U.S.
Was wondering about this myself - why didn't he 'no comment' it all the way, and if there was a loophole denying the right to silence under penalty of arrest, refuse all the same until they arrested him? Blumenthal said on J.Dore that he was worried about not being able to see his family. Well, fair enough, the UK has a record of locking up journalists indefinitely on trumped-up charges, but he must have known something like this was coming as a consequence of his reporting. As Der asks, why was he (apparently) so woefully unprepared? I had a brief look at the Schedule 3 power and it looks like he had the right to a solicitor, which it sounds like he also didn't use:
126. Where a person is detained for the purpose of a Schedule 3 examination, that person is entitled to consult a solicitor in private (whether in person or by telephone or any other reasonable way that the person wants to carry out that consultation) at any time if he or she so requests, which will be at public expense through legal aid.19
127. The examining officer must postpone questioning the person until he or she has consulted a solicitor in private (or no longer wishes to do so), unless the examining officer reasonably believes that postponing questioning until then would be likely to prejudice the purpose of the examination. For example, where the person insists on consulting with a particular solicitor who will not be available to consult with the person within a reasonable time period whether in person, on the telephone or by other means. If the examining officer decides not to postpone questioning the reasons must be recorded.
128. A detained person is entitled to consult privately with a solicitor in person unless the examining officer reasonably believes that the time it would take to consult a solicitor in person would be likely to prejudice the purpose of the examination. For example, if the detained person’s solicitor of choice is a number of hours away and unable to get to the police station or port in sufficient time to allow the examination to proceed. Where the examining officer refuses to allow a person to consult with a particular solicitor in person, he or she must make a written record of their reasons for doing so. The examining officer must inform the detained person 19 This includes UK and non-UK Nationals. that he or she may consult with their solicitor by another mode, for example, private telephone conversation.
129. Where consultation in person between the detained person and a particular solicitor is refused, and the person elects to consult in another way, for example by telephone, the examining officer must facilitate this, unless they reasonably believe that doing so would be likely to prejudice the purpose of the examination. For example, the person may not phone the solicitor multiple times, or extend the duration of a call beyond a reasonable time if it appears that the purpose of the examination is likely to be prejudiced. In such circumstances, if the examining officer reasonably believes that the delay caused by requesting multiple phone calls will prejudice the purpose of the examination, for example by leaving insufficient time to interview the person properly, the questioning may proceed.
130. Where the person specifies that he or she wants to consult a particular solicitor, and that solicitor will not be available within a reasonable period of time by any means (personal, telephone or other means) the examining officer must advise the person of the duty solicitor scheme.
131. The person may choose to be accompanied by a solicitor during questioning, whether the consultation is or has been in person or by way of a telephone call. If the detained person expresses a wish for a solicitor to be present during questioning, the examining officer must facilitate this unless the officer reasonably believes that doing so would be likely to prejudice the purpose of the examination, for example by causing unreasonable delay to the process of examination.
132. The examining officer must explain the Schedule 3 powers to the solicitor and the obligations the person is under. The solicitor can also be provided with the Public Information Leaflet. (pp.44-45)
*****
The only reference to right to silence is this paragraph:
'190. The examining officer should then explain that there is no right to silence and confirm that the person understands that a failure to answer a question asked of them or give any information requested by the officer is an offence under paragraph 16 of Schedule 3.' (p.62)
But paragraph 16 appears to be completely irrelevant:
'16. In order to act as review officers, immigration and customs officers must have been assessed by the DG of Border Force or the Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as having successfully undertaken training in the exercise of the Schedule 3 powers and functions to a national standard. Immigration and customs officers who have been accredited as being able to exercise Schedule 3 review officer functions must be reassessed on a biennial basis.' (pp.8-9)'
So I don't know what's going on there... It all seems incredibly dodgy, and like the cops were relying on the intimidation factor to get what they were after. Escalating it to the next level by refusing to participate or getting a lawyer involved might have collapsed the whole thing without handing over anything to them beyond the bare minimum name & address. He's a journalist ffs, not a terrorist! - as naive a statement as this is given the fascist nature of the UK security state...
What happens if I'm Arrested? Download PDF Download Section
Don’t panic! Just remember our key advice:
Make “NO COMMENT” to all questions. There is no such thing as a friendly chat with a police officer. Everything you say can and will likely be used as evidence. If they interview you, give a “No Comment” interview, unless under explicit advice from a good solicitor to make a written statement.
Don’t use the ‘duty solicitor’ (the one available at the police station). They often give bad advice to protesters. Use a solicitor recommended on the bust card instead.
Do not accept a caution! This is an easy win for the police. It is an admission of guilt and goes on your permanent record.
This guide goes into the arrest process and your rights in more detail.
Should I give the police my details? What happens when I get arrested? Rights in police custody Psychological prep What happens in an interview? Cautions Getting released What happens next?
... and he has been 'saved' by spilling the beans? Rubbish, they'll keep coming after him as long as his work keeps hitting the mark. Nobody can force you to speak if you choose not to, you just have to decide whether relinquishing that personal sovereignty is worth suffering the threatened consequences. So far all I've seen is a threat of arrest and unexplained consequence of 'prosecution' which would in all likelihood get thrown out of court. Greenwald and his partner stood their ground and prevailed.
Yes, it's easy to offer advice, and it's a different story when you're faced with it yourself, but the point is that 'no comment' and requesting an independent solicitor is a fairly elementary defence for activists, and if even I know that then it's neglectful of Klarenberg to not have prepared for that likely eventuality. Unless they threatened to kill his family or something...
on June 4, 2023, 10:07 am