From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 07:42:01 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: COE Recommendation No. R (95) 13
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951117154130.3578F-100000@viper.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID: <9511172249.AA09569@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>sorry, but there is a right to remain silent in Europe:

Pity the British Tories do not understand that. Because they brought in
the stupid "right of the prosecution to bring attention to the 
defendants refussal to answer questions" it probably means that a
very large number of current prosecutions will get sent down in about
three years time. Guess the cost of that!

It was only done because they had nothing else to spout at their conference.
My father (who is a conservative and whose cousin was chairman of the party
until recently) said he felt sick when he saw the conference on TV. Three 
strikes and you are out type stuff... 

Actually there is a set of crimes relating to fraud where there is a 
specific crime of refusal to answer interrogation. They messed this one
up as well. Rather than phrase it that the trustees of a fund have a duty to
account for the whereabouts of the funds at all times when asked they
simply removed the right to silence. Since trustees take on a position
voluntarily I don't see the same problems in requiring them to perform
certain duties (which involve disclosure) as removing their right to 
silence.


I don't think that the right to remain silent would be read in the manner
asserted however. It is a question of refusal to provide materal evidence
rather than a refusal to testify.


	Phill