Arrested foreigners uncooperative with Phuket police after Russian woman dies in balcony fall

[itsari]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

100% garbage.  Name one.  

England limits the right to remain silent and moves more to an inquisitorial system of justice .

That happened while John Major was the Prime Minister . 

That is not garbage .

The US supreme court has also limited the right to remain silent 

[itsari]

No stone was left unturned in the customers complaint 

[RJRS1301]

13 minutes ago, itsari said:

England limits the right to remain silent and moves more to an inquisitorial system of justice .

That happened while John Major was the Prime Minister . 

That is not garbage .

The US supreme court has also limited the right to remain silent 

 If you properly assert your right to remain silent, your silence cannot be used against you in court. If your case goes to jury trial, the jury would be given a specific instructions not to consider your silence as an admission of guilt.

 In 1983 the High Court described the privilege as follows:

A person may refuse to answer any question, or to produce any document or thing, if to do so ‘may tend to bring him into the peril and possibility of being convicted as a criminal’.^[3]

^{https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-interim-report-127/12-privilege-against-self-incrimination/a-common-law-right-8/}

[itsari]

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

 If you properly assert your right to remain silent, your silence cannot be used against you in court. If your case goes to jury trial, the jury would be given a specific instructions not to consider your silence as an admission of guilt.

 In 1983 the High Court described the privilege as follows:

A person may refuse to answer any question, or to produce any document or thing, if to do so ‘may tend to bring him into the peril and possibility of being convicted as a criminal’.^[3]

^{https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-interim-report-127/12-privilege-against-self-incrimination/a-common-law-right-8/}

Law was changed in the nineties 

[RJRS1301]

28 minutes ago, itsari said:

Law was changed in the nineties 

 

However these are English and Australian laws, from my research the "there appears to be nothing in Thai law pertaining to silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused fails to mention a specific fact that he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention. If this failure occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor. Section 34 of the 1994 act reverses the common law position^[7] that such failures could not be used as evidence of guilt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales

 

The changes below mention nothing about the presumption of guilt when one remains silent, what can happen is they may charged if they withhold information which they later rely on in court, nothing  about presumption of guilt

 

Effect of accused’s failure to mention facts when questioned or charged.

(1)Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence, evidence is given that the accused—

(a)at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or

(b)on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to mention any such fact,

[F1; or

(c)at any time after being charged with the offence, on being questioned under section 22 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (post-charge questioning), failed to mention any such fact,]

being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, subsection (2) below applies.

(2)Where this subsection applies—

F2( a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F3(b)a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under[F4 paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998]

(c)the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer;

and

(d)the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged,

may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossheading/inferences-from-accuseds-silence

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

38 minutes ago, itsari said:

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

100% garbage.  Name one.  

England limits the right to remain silent and moves more to an inquisitorial system of justice .

That happened while John Major was the Prime Minister . 

That is not garbage .

The US supreme court has also limited the right to remain silent 

Using one's right to remain silent is not regarded as an admission of guilt without there being other evidence in UK courts.

[Liverpool Lou]

23 minutes ago, itsari said:

25 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

 If you properly assert your right to remain silent, your silence cannot be used against you in court. If your case goes to jury trial, the jury would be given a specific instructions not to consider your silence as an admission of guilt.

 In 1983 the High Court described the privilege as follows:

A person may refuse to answer any question, or to produce any document or thing, if to do so ‘may tend to bring him into the peril and possibility of being convicted as a criminal’.^[3]

^{https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-alrc-interim-report-127/12-privilege-against-self-incrimination/a-common-law-right-8/}

Expand  

Law was changed in the nineties 

It was not changed to mean that without any other evidence using the right to remain silent alone was an admission of guilt that would result in a guilty verdict.

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It was not changed to mean that without any other evidence using the right to remain silent alone was an admission of guilt that would result in a guilty verdict.

Correct.

[Liverpool Lou]

12 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

from my research the "there appears to be nothing in Thai law pertaining to silence.

That "silent" provision exists in Thai law also.

[Excel]

59 minutes ago, itsari said:

England limits the right to remain silent and moves more to an inquisitorial system of justice .

That happened while John Major was the Prime Minister . 

That is not garbage .

The US supreme court has also limited the right to remain silent 

Just as well this thread is about events in Phuket, Thailand then isn't it and not any other countries jurisdiction or laws ?

[San Fran Dan]

11 hours ago, Mitkof Island said:

Just another normal day in places like Phuket and Pattaya

Stay in your lil moobaan safe area of Issan with your bargirl 

[Boyn]

Oh the lives that could be saved if LOS banned balconys

[Mises]

1 hour ago, itsari said:

Law was changed in the nineties 

Link please

[Aussieroaming]

I wonder how much cash wasn't found at the scene by the RTP. Forget forensic science, let's negotiate verbal confessions. 

[Pmbkk]

 

Phuket   -   the new Ko Tao ????

 

[dunroaming]

10 hours ago, vandeventer said:

The truth may never be known on this case but one thing is for sure she wasn't 7 years old. Again we can only guess what happen to this young lady but with all the drugs, alcohol and condom wrappers she wasn't having a birthday party as there was no cake.

According to the article...

"Scene found by police at The Emerald Terrace apartment building early on Tuesday morning was one of a sex, drugs and alcohol party with condom wrappers, an alcohol bottle and traces of cannabis found."

 

Really? Sounds like any teenagers bedroom in the western world.  Certainly matches my 18 year old sons. bedroom

[itsari]

1 hour ago, Mises said:

Link please

I am sure you are able to find the information your self.

I am mostly going by reading the news around 1995 .

It was changed to combat so called terrorism from the IRA . The IRA instructed there members if arrested to remain silent . 

This was frustrating the police and the courts .

[RJRS1301]

Just now, itsari said:

I am sure you are able to find the information your self.

I am mostly going by reading the news around 1995 .

It was changed to combat so called terrorism from the IRA . The IRA instructed there members if arrested to remain silent . 

This was frustrating the police and the courts .

Read the posts about the ACTUAL law not your interpretation.

[itsari]

Just now, RJRS1301 said:

Read the posts about the ACTUAL law not your interpretation.

The posts are incorrect 

 

1 minute ago, RJRS1301 said:

Read the posts about the ACTUAL law not your interpretation.

The posts are not correct

[itsari]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It was not changed to mean that without any other evidence using the right to remain silent alone was an admission of guilt that would result in a guilty verdict.

The change gave a judge more room to move when a defended used the right to remain silent .

At least you now acknowledge there was a change which was significant.

[RJRS1301]

12 minutes ago, itsari said:

The posts are incorrect 

 

The posts are not correct

Glad you know more than the actual legislation and the courts

They came from the courts, verbatim

That is the Parliamentary Legislation

[itsari]

5 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Glad you know more than the actual legislation and the courts

They came from the courts, verbatim

That is the Parliamentary Legislation

I am pleased too .

Have a good night

[RJRS1301]

5 minutes ago, itsari said:

I am pleased too .

Have a good night

  3 hours ago, itsari said:

Law was changed in the nineties 

 

However these are English and Australian laws, from my research the "there appears to be nothing in Thai law pertaining to silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused fails to mention a specific fact that he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention. If this failure occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor. Section 34 of the 1994 act reverses the common law position^[7] that such failures could not be used as evidence of guilt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales

 

The changes below mention nothing about the presumption of guilt when one remains silent, what can happen is they may charged if they withhold information which they later rely on in court, nothing  about presumption of guilt

 

Effect of accused’s failure to mention facts when questioned or charged.

(1)Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence, evidence is given that the accused—

(a)at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or

(b)on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to mention any such fact,

[F1; or

(c)at any time after being charged with the offence, on being questioned under section 22 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (post-charge questioning), failed to mention any such fact,]

being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, subsection (2) below applies.

(2)Where this subsection applies—

F2( a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F3(b)a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under[F4 paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998]

(c)the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer;

and

(d)the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged,

may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossheading/inferences-from-accuseds-silence

 

[itsari]

6 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

  3 hours ago, itsari said:

Law was changed in the nineties 

 

However these are English and Australian laws, from my research the "there appears to be nothing in Thai law pertaining to silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused fails to mention a specific fact that he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention. If this failure occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor. Section 34 of the 1994 act reverses the common law position^[7] that such failures could not be used as evidence of guilt.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales

 

The changes below mention nothing about the presumption of guilt when one remains silent, what can happen is they may charged if they withhold information which they later rely on in court, nothing  about presumption of guilt

 

Effect of accused’s failure to mention facts when questioned or charged.

(1)Where, in any proceedings against a person for an offence, evidence is given that the accused—

(a)at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned under caution by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or

(b)on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to mention any such fact,

[F1; or

(c)at any time after being charged with the offence, on being questioned under section 22 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (post-charge questioning), failed to mention any such fact,]

being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, subsection (2) below applies.

(2)Where this subsection applies—

F2( a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F3(b)a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under[F4 paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998]

(c)the court, in determining whether there is a case to answer;

and

(d)the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged,

may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/III/crossheading/inferences-from-accuseds-silence

 

Decisions made in a court in the past is used for determining how the law is to be used .

Often very confusing.

Remaining silent is not going to help the defendant in this day and age .

[NobbyClarke]

15 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Chuck them all in the click, few days or weeks of a Thai prison and unless its mob related they will be singing like canaries !

I agree. The sooner the better 

[PPGuy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10881899/Pictured-Russian-model-37-fell-80ft-death-apartment-sex-party-Phuket.html

 

A Daily Mail update, so treat accordingly...........

[ChaiyaTH]

15 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

They will get a much longer sentence for drug possession than homicide. How crackers is that? RIP to the deceased.

1.1 gram of weed? that would be a 3-5K baht fine at most, in court.

[ChaiyaTH]

I came across some lady years ago who seemed the most lovely and nice. I was not aware of her using anything other than alcohol or weed too until she woke up in the middle of the night and started to scream I was the evil on earth + running to the kitchen to grab a knife.

I was lucky to be awake right away, I threw a chair at her and then kicked her out naked. That was a whole struggle though, could seriously have gone wrong, the balcony was near.

 

Anyway, obviously it is not suicide or an accident, else 1 of the 3 already talked.

[Adumbration]

What is a sunni muslim doing at a drug and alcohol party?

[The Hammer2021]

In the UK the Jordanian would be claiming his human rights had been abused and it would be accepted!