Do we have the right to remain silent in Australia?

This seems like an absurd thing for the prosecuters to do. Could the bikies get around it by giving an obviously insane answer?

More consequences if I answer CCC: bikie

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/mp/8501388/more-consequences-if-i-answer-ccc-bikie/

Update, 3.50pm: Finks motorcycle gang members and associates have been found guilty of contempt for refusing to answer questions about a vicious brawl at the Perth Motorplex, but have been given an opportunity to reconsider their position.

Senior Fink Stephen Wallace, Tristan Allbeury, Stephen Silvestro, Neil McCormack and Troy Smith were summonsed on 40 allegations of contempt, ranging from refusing to be sworn in to give evidence to insulting Len Roberts-Smith, QC, head of the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC).

Silvestro was in hospital and did not appear with the others in the Perth District Court on Monday.

A warrant for his arrest has been issued.

All five men had appeared before the CCC in November over a clash with rival gang the Coffin Cheaters at a Harley Davidson drag race event on October 3.

In court on Monday, a video was shown of the men refusing to give evidence during the CCC hearing.

When Wallace was asked repeatedly at the CCC hearing if he wanted to take an oath or an affirmation, he replied: “I don’t understand.”

Mr Roberts-Smith explained that Wallace had to take the oath or the affirmation to tell the truth.

“I don’t know what the Bible is, mate,” Wallace replied, slouching in his chair. “I have nothing more to say.”

Wallace told the commissioner his lawyer had told him that he did not have to participate.

“I’m telling you that you are obliged to participate,” Mr Roberts-Smith said.

After several minutes Wallace finally took the affirmation but refused to answer any questions, replying with “no comment” to every question posed to him.

Smith and Silvestro both remained silent and would not even take the oath, slouching and swivelling in their chairs, and folding their arms in defiance.

A DVD of Mr McCormack’s evidence to the commission showed him telling the commission he would "not answer any more questions so I might as well stop now."

When warned there would be consequences to not answering the CCC questions he replied: "I can see more consequences if I answer, I don’t see youse going to anyone’ funeral".

A visibly agitated Allbeury told the lawyer asking questions and the commissioner to “get bugger**” and “bugger off” more than a dozen times.

Chief Justice Wayne Martin found that the men had “failed to answer questions” that were important to the CCC’s investigation.

He said Allbeury’s foul language was also insulting to the commissioner.

“It was an abusive, derogatory and contemptive response,” he said.

However, he said the men should be given the opportunity to reconsider their position and give evidence to the CCC.

The decision prompted Wallace to shout in the court, “I don’t need to reconsider.”
Chief Justice Martin ignored the outburst and ordered all the men to be detained in custody until January 21 when they will be sentenced if they do not cooperate with the CCC.

Yes they have the right to remain silent all the way to prison. Their cooperation is not required for due process to occur. I think they are all accesories to murder aren't they?

They have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Why would they speak and assist the prosecution knowing it will lead to their arrest down the track.

Ultimatley its lazy prosecution, trying to get them to testify in one arena which will lead to their arrest and prosecution in another.

Whether or not I agree with them, they should be allowed to refuse to answer questions which may incriminate themselves if not offerred immunity.

As if they would answer anything thrown at them.  These guys dont kiss and tell, they just get even.

This sort of scum dont give a toss about anyones elses rights so I would have no problem with outsourcing their trials and punishment to the Chinese govt.
Lets see how long these violent criminal gangs last when they get a bit of their own back  :)

i would refuse to submit to this masonic kill grid as well

but useing a different tact yes

namaste

-:)

Verge wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 3:18pm:

They have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Why would they speak and assist the prosecution knowing it will lead to their arrest down the track. Ultimatley its lazy prosecution, trying to get them to testify in one arena which will lead to their arrest and prosecution in another. Whether or not I agree with them, they should be allowed to refuse to answer questions which may incriminate themselves if not offerred immunity. As if they would answer anything thrown at them.  These guys dont kiss and tell, they just get even.

It's not lazy prosecution it's just part of the legal game. I think it is a waste of time so just get on with it.

They have the right to remain silent...that's what I said before. But silence doesn't mean immunity from being charged, prosecuted and sentenced. you don't have to say a word in defence or self incrimination to be found guilty.

Gloves should be completely off when it comes to dealing with organised crime groups.

freediver wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 10:50pm:

Do we have the right to remain silent in Australia?

Yes we do...You are confusing the 'right to remain silent' with the American 5th Amendment..

The 'right to remain silent' only applies UNTIL you are charged with an offence..

Your rights when first arrested are different to your rights in court..

"YOUR RIGHTS UNDER ARREST

When arrested and taken into custody by the police you have the following basic rights:

The right to remain silent, and not to answer any questions put to you by the police (unless you are specifically compelled by law to answer a particular questions or provide specific information).

The right to be informed about the 4 hour investigation period and the possible extension of it.. A person in custody at a Police Station, must be informed by the Custody Manager, that the person can attempt to contact a friend, relative, guardian or independent person, or legal practitioner and ask the legal practitioner to attend at the Police Station. The Police must assist the person in making contact if the person so wishes."

These are different from the 'rights' in a court proceeding..

locutius wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 5:04pm:

Verge wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 3:18pm: They have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Why would they speak and assist the prosecution knowing it will lead to their arrest down the track. Ultimatley its lazy prosecution, trying to get them to testify in one arena which will lead to their arrest and prosecution in another. Whether or not I agree with them, they should be allowed to refuse to answer questions which may incriminate themselves if not offerred immunity. As if they would answer anything thrown at them.  These guys dont kiss and tell, they just get even. It's not lazy prosecution it's just part of the legal game. I think it is a waste of time so just get on with it. They have the right to remain silent...that's what I said before. But silence doesn't mean immunity from being charged, prosecuted and sentenced. you don't have to say a word in defence or self incrimination to be found guilty. Gloves should be completely off when it comes to dealing with organised crime groups.

If you want to sit on the stand and say nothing in your own defence, then so be it.

But to throw you in jail because you wont incriminate yourself is just wrong.

Sure, say nothing and be found guilty thats fine.  But dont expect them to make the prosecutions case for them while on the stand.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 5:41pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 10:50pm: Do we have the right to remain silent in Australia? Yes we do...You are confusing the 'right to remain silent' with the American 5th Amendment.. The 'right to remain silent' only applies UNTIL you are charged with an offence.. Your rights when first arrested are different to your rights in court.. "YOUR RIGHTS UNDER ARREST When arrested and taken into custody by the police you have the following basic rights: The right to remain silent, and not to answer any questions put to you by the police (unless you are specifically compelled by law to answer a particular questions or provide specific information). The right to be informed about the 4 hour investigation period and the possible extension of it.. A person in custody at a Police Station, must be informed by the Custody Manager, that the person can attempt to contact a friend, relative, guardian or independent person, or legal practitioner and ask the legal practitioner to attend at the Police Station. The Police must assist the person in making contact if the person so wishes." These are different from the 'rights' in a court proceeding..

Thanks gizmo. Do we have anything equivalent to the fifth amendment?

adelcrow wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 3:50pm:

This sort of scum dont give a toss about anyones elses rights so I would have no problem with outsourcing their trials and punishment to the Chinese govt. Lets see how long these violent criminal gangs last when they get a bit of their own back  :)

Surely not another tard discriminating? Jumping to uninformed conclusions?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 15^th, 2010 at 5:41pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2010 at 10:50pm: Do we have the right to remain silent in Australia? Yes we do...You are confusing the 'right to remain silent' with the American 5th Amendment.. The 'right to remain silent' only applies UNTIL you are charged with an offence.. Your rights when first arrested are different to your rights in court.. "YOUR RIGHTS UNDER ARREST When arrested and taken into custody by the police you have the following basic rights: The right to remain silent, and not to answer any questions put to you by the police (unless you are specifically compelled by law to answer a particular questions or provide specific information). The right to be informed about the 4 hour investigation period and the possible extension of it.. A person in custody at a Police Station, must be informed by the Custody Manager, that the person can attempt to contact a friend, relative, guardian or independent person, or legal practitioner and ask the legal practitioner to attend at the Police Station. The Police must assist the person in making contact if the person so wishes." These are different from the 'rights' in a court proceeding..

Yes I suppose in court the phrase " I can't recollect" then is used.

Verge wrote on Dec 16^th, 2010 at 9:30am:

locutius wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 5:04pm: Verge wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 3:18pm: They have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Why would they speak and assist the prosecution knowing it will lead to their arrest down the track. Ultimatley its lazy prosecution, trying to get them to testify in one arena which will lead to their arrest and prosecution in another. Whether or not I agree with them, they should be allowed to refuse to answer questions which may incriminate themselves if not offerred immunity. As if they would answer anything thrown at them.  These guys dont kiss and tell, they just get even. It's not lazy prosecution it's just part of the legal game. I think it is a waste of time so just get on with it. They have the right to remain silent...that's what I said before. But silence doesn't mean immunity from being charged, prosecuted and sentenced. you don't have to say a word in defence or self incrimination to be found guilty. Gloves should be completely off when it comes to dealing with organised crime groups. If you want to sit on the stand and say nothing in your own defence, then so be it. But to throw you in jail because you wont incriminate yourself is just wrong. Sure, say nothing and be found guilty thats fine.  But dont expect them to make the prosecutions case for them while on the stand.

Lie or stay silent, who cares. It comes down to evidence as per usual. The hearing is a waste of time and money yes. Do I expect them to incriminate themselves? No I don't. My point IS that remaining silent does not imply innocence just non co-operation. It is not a santuary against being found guilty.

I agree, if you find yourself in a courtroom, you must defend your position.

Non defense = no defense. That equals no contest to the prosecution's position.
It's a dumbass position and a dumbass tact used by the bikies, it holds no weight at all once you are in the courtroom.

I wouldn't bother wasting democratic time on those wannabe dictators.
They have no idea about anything except anti-social attitude. They're right up there with terrorists. In fact, they are terrorists. That's what they do.
Some of the bikie gangs like to get ordinary people, for initiation, to do things like hold a gun to another person's head and order those people to do something in compliance with the bikie dictatorship mentality.

They'll also get their wannabe members hooked on drugs and crap to be part of their "society", just as bad a Jonestown type brainwashing.
I shouldn't generalise, but some of the ones I know of are pure evil. The only objective being to be the biggest and baddest.
What they are is the dumbest. Their law should in no way hinder the real law.

locutius wrote on Dec 20^th, 2010 at 9:16am:

Verge wrote on Dec 16th, 2010 at 9:30am: locutius wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 5:04pm: Verge wrote on Dec 15th, 2010 at 3:18pm: They have the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Why would they speak and assist the prosecution knowing it will lead to their arrest down the track. Ultimatley its lazy prosecution, trying to get them to testify in one arena which will lead to their arrest and prosecution in another. Whether or not I agree with them, they should be allowed to refuse to answer questions which may incriminate themselves if not offerred immunity. As if they would answer anything thrown at them.  These guys dont kiss and tell, they just get even. It's not lazy prosecution it's just part of the legal game. I think it is a waste of time so just get on with it. They have the right to remain silent...that's what I said before. But silence doesn't mean immunity from being charged, prosecuted and sentenced. you don't have to say a word in defence or self incrimination to be found guilty. Gloves should be completely off when it comes to dealing with organised crime groups. If you want to sit on the stand and say nothing in your own defence, then so be it. But to throw you in jail because you wont incriminate yourself is just wrong. Sure, say nothing and be found guilty thats fine.  But dont expect them to make the prosecutions case for them while on the stand. Lie or stay silent, who cares. It comes down to evidence as per usual. The hearing is a waste of time and money yes. Do I expect them to incriminate themselves? No I don't. My point IS that remaining silent does not imply innocence just non co-operation. It is not a santuary against being found guilty.

I think we are on the same page.

I dont mind if people say nothing on the stand, but I do acknowledge that it isnt a sanctuary against being found guilty.

If anything though, I believe saying nothing is a sanctuary for not being found guilty by your own admission.

I would rather someone say nothing than commit purjury.