The defendant should have just said no to the 3rd question saying she could recollect the events. The prosection won't know where to go next. Simple defence tactic.
It is usually unwise to introduce a topic during a trial without first giving it careful thought. Once a subject is mentioned, it becomes relevant and can be used against either the defense or the prosecution.
The prosecution advocate must have an excellent geographical knowledge. She could not have known beforehand that the defendant was going to change her story from a police station to the bank yet she had the relative distances to hand. Mmm....not credible.
That's why you should NEVER make a statement to the police when you are arrested. It is your right to keep silent. Beside that, in Quebec, and maybe in France too, it would be illegal for a judge to wear a religious sign like the indian judge in the video.
A religious sign? Sikhs are forbidden from cutting their hair. The men have long hair that they grow their entire life without cutting, so they wear a turban to neatly hold it together. Would you rather that they walk in with open hair like a Pantene commercial?
You don't really have a right to silence anymore. The court can draw adverse inference from silence. S. 34 - 37 of The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
@@Plastik13 I know but where do you think the CPS get their evidence to prosecute you from? The police. If you say nothing, the court can essentially say "He stayed silent during the police interview because there was no innocent explanation to give at the time." You can stay silent, they can't compel you to speak but they can draw adverse inference from your silence.
I have a friend whom soon starts their pupilage; she introduced us to basic cross. This is an addendum, and one that is rather useful. I like
Love these snippets. Best way to learn.
Glad you like them!
Great videos! With all the current nonsense going on, it's nice to understand how the courtroom works and their ethics.
Thank you so much. Glad the videos are helpful.
😆
The defendant should have just said no to the 3rd question saying she could recollect the events. The prosection won't know where to go next. Simple defence tactic.
It is usually unwise to introduce a topic during a trial without first giving it careful thought. Once a subject is mentioned, it becomes relevant and can be used against either the defense or the prosecution.
This was engaging and very well executed!
Thank you LEGALology.
Thank you sooo much for your tutorials for people like us that are from humble beginings this is the next best thing to Oxford.
I am so happy you find the videos useful Deborah and thank you for such a lovely comment. Best wishes.
Anybody else notice the dastār flip direction at the end?
waaw that was a good one i learnt alot about it
I'm glad it was helpful rule of law.
Thank you for sharing.
My pleasure!
Nice informative video...thanks
Glad you liked it
Are police allowed to make accusations during an interview?
yes
Educative 🎉
Wonderful video 😊
Glad you enjoyed it.
Love the judge clapping at the end. Never happened in my court though!
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
😅
Why would a defendant get on the witness stand they must have an idiot for defense council...
Defendants are free to accept or reject Counsel's advice.
@@advocacytutor6354 lol...
@@advocacytutor6354 Sounds like the advice of a dumptruck lawyer...
Better to put your version. She has right to remain silent but that won't help her case a her version is not available to court
It's pretty common, especially when the accused thinks they're too cool for school.
Nice vedeos!
Thank you
@jessicasolomon6986
I thought the prosecutor had crutches, it was good to see them off at the end to confirm.
👍👍👍
The prosecution advocate must have an excellent geographical knowledge. She could not have known beforehand that the defendant was going to change her story from a police station to the bank yet she had the relative distances to hand. Mmm....not credible.
That's why you should NEVER make a statement to the police when you are arrested. It is your right to keep silent. Beside that, in Quebec, and maybe in France too, it would be illegal for a judge to wear a religious sign like the indian judge in the video.
A religious sign? Sikhs are forbidden from cutting their hair. The men have long hair that they grow their entire life without cutting, so they wear a turban to neatly hold it together. Would you rather that they walk in with open hair like a Pantene commercial?
You don't really have a right to silence anymore. The court can draw adverse inference from silence.
S. 34 - 37 of The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
@@Seronu I am not talking about before the judge, I was talking about before the police.
@@Plastik13 I know but where do you think the CPS get their evidence to prosecute you from? The police.
If you say nothing, the court can essentially say "He stayed silent during the police interview because there was no innocent explanation to give at the time."
You can stay silent, they can't compel you to speak but they can draw adverse inference from your silence.
@@Seronu LOL really not. The fact that you remained silent during the police interview can not be interpreted against you, not in Canada at least.
Why is Diane abbot doing a voice of a prosecutor 😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂
Great video but some questions here
A1
😀😀
🤦♂️
Bravo! Even womin with bracces and sufi muslimms can accomplis things in lief. Nevar let your handicaps stop you!
Miss Lightfingers should never have talked to the police.
🤔🤔
Informative while woke and propagandist in the subliminal ....every opportunity to push the prevailing narrative.
What on earth are you on about?
Thank you.
......wut?