The number of people who are victims of crime rise on a
daily basis, whether that the theft of a pedal cycle or the invasion of their
home during a burglary. Many people are interviewed by the Police in respect of
these criminal offences and a common legal loop hole is to provide what are
termed as ‘no comment’ interviews.
In effect during these interviews, those who are being
investigated of a criminal offence are asked a question and they reply ‘no
comment’ or something similar. An interview with the Police is your opportunity
to present your case and a chance for them to put their evidence to you to see
whether you can provide a reasonable account. Any reasonable person who was
innocent of any offences would provide an account. Those who are criminally
minded are more inclined to use this legal loop hole to provide a ‘no comment’
interview because it’s easier than providing a false account and having to
remember that account.
At this point it is worth making two things clear. The Police
are responsible for the collation of all the available evidence whether it
works in theirs or the criminals favour. They are to be impartial in all
investigations and present evidence objectively taking no sides.
Secondly, during a criminal interview, if you provide an account
during that interview which is untrue and your account is later found out to be
untrue in the main you have committed an offence of perverting the course of
justice as you lied intending to divert the Police investigation away from you
and stop yourself being prosecuted for the original offence.
The relevance of these items will hopefully be shown later
on. I propose a number of changes in the criminal justice system and one of
those changes is to remove the right to no comment and replace it with the
requirement to provide an account.
This change will only really affect Police station interviews
as to make use of this provision; certain conditions will need to be met. To
begin with the person investigated will need to officially be a suspect, in
that there is evidence linking them to the offence for which they are being
investigated, this prevents the provision being misused by cop’s with hunches
as right as they may be. The interview has to take place at a Police station,
it has to be tape recorded, it has to be carried out in accordance with the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a warning at the beginning of the interview
has to be given to the person being investigated to the effect that they are being
investigated for a criminal offence and they must provide an account. It is
important to point out that they have to provide an account, not a reasonable
account. The reason I have looked to say an account is because reasonable is
subjective, where as providing an account is black and white.
I believe that with these conditions reduce the chance of
the provision being misused and in any case the final say on whether the
provision was misused will be decided by a court.
If a person fails to provide an account when the conditions
are met, then they will commit a separate offence for which they will receive a
term of imprisonment equivalent to that of the offence or offences for which
they were under investigation for, irrespective of whether they are convicted
of the original criminal offence or not. Finally, a person can only be
convicted of failing to provide an account before a jury in a Crown Court. Such
cases will not be heard in magistrates court.
I know this will be like marmite, people will either love it
or hate it. I think this change is essential in the criminal justice system so
that those responsible for criminal offences are brought to justice and those innocent
of criminal offences are cleared.
The conditions I believe need imposing prior to using such
provisions are there to protect the rights of individuals and prevents as far
as possible the misuse of the provision and finally the reason I have decided
that all cases of people failing to provide an account should be heard in the
Crown Court before a jury is so that the person being investigated can be judged
amongst their peers and it is their peers who will decide whether the person
has provided an account or not.
I am a firm believer in the principle that people are
innocent until proven guilty, but in this case I cannot think of any other
reason why a person would not provide an account when facing the prospect of a
criminal conviction, unless they were indeed guilty.
On Twitter? Why not post me your questions :
@ThePMCandidate
Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com
The Candidate
