Dd? You ok with dis?
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/na ... 6601328430
No 5th Amendment for Dd?
-
Minute
- Sublime Prince of teh Royal Sekrut Strat
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:39 am
- Location: Brothel Relbeeks Mother Whores Herself From
No 5th Amendment for Dd?
Fallakin Kuvari wrote:Because laws that require voters to have an ID (Something they are required to have anyway) are bad....
-
Kulaf
- Soverign Grand Postmaster General
- Posts: 7185
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am
Re: No 5th Amendment for Dd?
Frankly it seems like a fairly silly law. How can you stop a juror from making "an unforvorable inference" about anything?Under the new laws, an unfavourable inference can be drawn if an accused person fails to mention something during official police questioning that they could reasonably be expected to mention, and that they later rely on in their defence.
-
Ddrak
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17517
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
Re: No 5th Amendment for Dd?
"unfavorable inference" over what they "could be reasonable expected to mention"...
I would say no one would be reasonably expected to incriminate themselves. It's a bloody stupid and vague law. Glad I don't live in NSW. Rights here are: http://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-pol ... uestioned/
You do have to answer some questions here, mostly about traffic violations if you saw anything. You also have to give your identity. It's a bit odd. Realistically though, get a lawyer and answer through them in either case.
Dd
I would say no one would be reasonably expected to incriminate themselves. It's a bloody stupid and vague law. Glad I don't live in NSW. Rights here are: http://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-pol ... uestioned/
You do have to answer some questions here, mostly about traffic violations if you saw anything. You also have to give your identity. It's a bit odd. Realistically though, get a lawyer and answer through them in either case.
Dd
