And they have a warrant to search his computer.
it's the same as any other search. And he's obstructed that. Which is a criminal offence. Which he is cast iron guilty of. So he's gone to prison. Problem is?

Or. let me put it another way. The police are trying to prove him guilty. he broke another, different law to stop them. It's not difficult to understand, surely?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:04, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

I understand it fine.
I don't like it.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:08, Reply)

would you not like it if it was a house search?

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:11, Reply)

He doesn't have to open the front door to the police in a house search.
They can break it down using force.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:25, Reply)

What if the house had a bank vault in it which was within the terms of the search
but only he had the code for?

The fact that they "can" get in other ways doesn't make him failing to comply with the terms of a warrant any less of a crime.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:37, Reply)

It's the principle against self incrimination

(Bazongaloid, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:12, Reply)

Bollocks is it.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:13, Reply)

Top dialogue there.

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:16, Reply)

I'm on lightning form today.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:18, Reply)

Al's right
You're talking rubbish.

The police cannot expect someone to incriminate themselves - it opens the door to corruption and fit-ups.

The police have to prove guilt, not guess someone's crooked and then ask him to show them in which way he is!
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 6 Oct 2010, 13:49, Reply)

The Americans have a constitution prohibiting self incrimination
I may be wrong, but we do not.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:15, Reply)

So that "right to remain silent" bit is just something they put in The Bill because it sounds good?

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:21, Reply)

That's a right to remain silent, different to the American 5th amendment

( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:25, Reply)

But "you have the right to remain silent, except when we ask for your passwords" is a clear erosion of this right,
is it not?
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:30, Reply)

It's got fuck all to do with the right to silence.
It's failure to comply with the terms of a warrant.

Incidentally, while remaining silent can no longer be taken as an admission of guilt, it's a fairly fucking stupid defence, do you not think?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:34, Reply)

It's not a defence. It's refusing to assist the police in their enquiries.
Hence the "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" bit.

I'll need to do some more research on the warrant thing.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:42, Reply)

However, if the enquires are related to a crime you may or may not have committed
it's still going to end up as your defence. Anyway, off the point. Vipros's safe example up there is the best direct comparison. The bloke's a) guilty and b) a tit, to boot, if he's doing it to make a point.

and with that ... lunch.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 6 Oct 2010, 12:46, Reply)