Hacker News Reader

Comment by Evernoob | Hacker News Reader

Because he was a scared kid who wanted this to go away, and the police told him it would if he just answer their questions and not wait the "2 hours" for the lawyer.

He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.

View on HN

Agreed, but this is standard tactics for the police.

The police (particularly the met) are out to get an easy prosecution and fulfill their statistical requirements rather than fair and honest justice. They will pretend to be your friend and offer you an easy way out that doesn't exist to do this.

The best thing you can do is say nothing at all. Shut your gob and refuse to say a word. Everything should be replied to with "no comment".

Relevant talk for those, who thinks it can be a good idea to talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

I am not a lawyer, but it's worth noting that in the UK we don't have a 5th amendment. So I believe in some circumstances it can reflect badly on you if you refuse to answer questions from the Police especially where you could have provided information that would have been in your favour.

For example, part of standard USA Miranda:

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

British Equivalent:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court"

Having said that, I would personally keep quiet until you at least have a solicitor.

That is when you are questioned, not when you are arrested. You can keep quiet as long as you want. Technically the simpler your questioning and therefore statement is, the more ambiguity is available in court which goes in your favor whether guilty or innocent. During cross examination, any error you make ruins your credibility. No information = less errors. Choosing not to answer a question does not imply guilt - it's in the CPS prosecution guidelines.

With respect to solicitors, get a private one as well (preferably one who knowingly hates the police) rather than a duty solicitor as they are in the pockets of the police in the UK. They are one and the same - they eat, drink, socialise and funny handshake in the same locations.

Choosing not to answer does not imply guilt, however simply stone walling with "no comment" is probably not as good an idea as it would be in the US (although a solicitor would be able to advise you on what you should answer).

I'm not sure whether "questioned" just means when you are at the police station or also during the time of the arrest. I would assume it could refer to both "why did you not bring this to the attention of the officer at the time of the arrest?".

Although I would imagine a rational jury would think that waiting for legal advice was a sensible thing to do.

Regards duty solicitors, I always thought that these were really private solicitors who were put on a rotation and were strictly kept separate from the police?

http://www.jfhlaw.co.uk/faqs/crime-faqs/what-is-a-duty-solic...

If there is a case of corruption here then that would be extremely worrying as the people most likely to be charged with crimes are also the people with the least ability to pay a private solicitor. Is there anything to back this up?

I'm also not sure I would want a solicitor who "hates" the police, I would want somebody motivated to help me, not get one over on someone else. The adversarial relationship between the police and solicitor should be professional and not personal.

You are unlikely to be trialled with jury. It'll be sealed or with a magistrate.

There's nothing to back it up unfortunately other than a number of horror stories over the years of people getting shafted. The law is extremely biased towards those with money unless its a high profile case.

Duty solicitors are private solicitors but from direct experience, they aren't always neutral. Its bad when you find your duty solicitor in the pub with the arresting officer (I was arrested and charged with assault a few years ago when I disabled someone assaulting my wife). That made an interesting picture to show in court I will say.

The rationale for police hatred is that they are less likely to be biased against you.

The human race is particularly self serving I find which is the issue.

Getting off-topic here, but would you mind sharing what happened in your case, when the court was shown the picture of the officer/solicitor as drinking buddies?

What if they were drinking buddies though and had known each other since childhood or somesuch?

Is there a rule that says a criminal defence solicitor can never be in a social setting with a Police Officer?

I think it presents a clear conflict of interests if a solicitor is representing a client who was arrested by a close friend of said solicitor.

The magistrate said that the CPS and police had made a mockery of the legal system and that he was striking the case off. CPS solicitor was reprimanded verbally. I was awarded costs of 300 pounds. Lasted about 5 mins after that.

If you're arrested in the UK, you'll be asked if you want a solicitor present. If you do, then you'll not be questioned until your solicitor arrives and gives you legal advice.

This isn't brought up in court, as it's basically inadmissible. That said, there are a couple of situations where you can be questioned without a lawyer present - a lovely side-product of our "anti-terror" legislation.

For reference, having been on the end of it (at Waterloo Station [1]), the police also use another tactic regularly which sucks but is easily dealt with:

"I'll pepper spray you if you don't make a statement and say you were resisting arrest".

Make a fucking scene: "shout as loud as possible what the officer said". When there are a hundred eyes on you, they back off.

[1] I was going camping and had a hatchet inside my bag (not easily accessible) and was stopped and searched. It is definitely legal to carry such things as long as there is a purpose for it.

He was 24 so not exactly a "kid". In fact if you are scared a solicitor is probably the best thing you could have to alleviate some of the fear and uncertainty and give you an ally in such a situation.

I was arrested when I was 14 (for something minor) and I wasn't dumb enough to refuse legal representation.

> He made a mistake. He should not be extradited and imprisoned in a foreign country for a decade for posting links on the internet.

He knew what he was doing. He is alleged to have made ~£150,000 in advertising revenue from the site.

He had his TVShack.net domain seized by ICE in June 2010. Any kid simply making a mistake would have given up at that point.

Instead, within a matter of days he set the site up again on a new TVShack.cc domain, adding a picture of NWA and the statement "F* the police" to the top of the site.

Is this actually true? Are there some links to back it up?

The judgment from the extradition hearing in Westminster Magistrates' Court contains all the accusations: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...

The relevant US attorney alleged over $230,000 in advertising payments had been identified. When questioned by City of London Police in November 2010, O'Dwyer allegedly admitted to "earning approximately £15,000 per month" from advertisements.

The shut down of TVShack.net and reemergence of the site on the TVShack.cc domain with the "F*ck the Police" banner is also described.

Thanks for the link. I guess you were originally down-voted because some people don't like a counter-opinion when it comes to file sharing. I have mixed feelings about sharing but the one thing I don't really like is when people are claiming to just "share" but are actually making a significant profit. I think if there is profit being made then at least a portion of it should be going to the artists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com