Re: On Kit Klarenberg colluding with police in weakening our "Right to Silence".
Posted by Ian M on June 4, 2023, 2:40 pm, in reply to "On Kit Klarenberg colluding with police in weakening our "Right to Silence". "
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: |
Right to access a solicitor in private
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...
Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously