Eastenders - Current Episode Discussion - VIII

[parkerman]

I'm a bit hazy about this but wasn't the law changed some time in the 1990s so that a court could consider silence or "no comment" as, if not a presumption of guilt, at least no longer a presumption of innocence. Until then the law held that the prosecution had to prove its case and if the defendant remained silent or just answered no comment, the jury were not allowed to draw any inference from it, but this changed, so that the jury could draw its own conclusion from the defendant's refusal to answer. I seem to remember this because there was a big "human rights" outcry about this change of law at the time. Does anyone know more about this?

[lizann]

did phil hand in the phone and wallet to perhaps implicate jay as well as ben

[parkerman]

did phil hand in the phone and wallet to perhaps implicate jay as well as ben

No. He definitely did it as he was worried about Ben and felt it was the best thing to do.

[Glen1]

I'm a bit hazy about this but wasn't the law changed some time in the 1990s so that a court could consider silence or "no comment" as, if not a presumption of guilt, at least no longer a presumption of innocence. Until then the law held that the prosecution had to prove its case and if the defendant remained silent or just answered no comment, the jury were not allowed to draw any inference from it, but this changed, so that the jury could draw its own conclusion from the defendant's refusal to answer. I seem to remember this because there was a big "human rights" outcry about this change of law at the time. Does anyone know more about this?

1. "You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but what you say may be given in evidence."
This was the original caution given upon arrest and again prior to interview .
2.
You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial."
This was drawn up by, guess who, Michael Howard .in an attempt to stop the no comment, and sometimes the complete silent responses to questions. This was thought to be too much for the average bobby to remember and the next caution was introduced.
3.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. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
So you are right Parkerman also there was a a human rights issue based upon the caution giving a right to silence but then being a threat if that right was used.

[Dazzle]

Yes, that condundrum: how Phil was even allowed by Marsden to go.

Yes, that was glossed over very quickly. If I remember correctly, there was a time jump of a couple of days after the cliffhanger of Phil handing over the phone and purse. Again, it's very annoying when interesting details happen off-screen! I think the writers under-estimate the attention span of their audience...

I agree, Jay probably had a duty solicitor and if Phil offered to pay for Richie, he'd have told him to stick it since he had again used him for his own ends.

At last, someone who agrees with me! I could kiss your right now Kim!


Regarding the "no comment" trick: of course it makes a suspect looks guilty as hell, but I think the point is that if you don't implicate yourself you're less likely to end up in court anyway. It's very easy to lose your cool and inadvertently say something incriminating under the pressure of hours of interrogation.

We saw Ben nearly flip under the strain of Marsden's questioning, but Ritchie kept him strong. That's what gave me the idea that Jay did cave under pressure without the support of someone as strong as her by his side.

[Kim]

There was certainly a time jump, but I believe it was between Marsden warning Phil that wasting police time was a serious offence and him appearing back at home. There could only have been a few hours skipped between Phil handing the stuff in and his next appearance, as I recall Marsden saying that there had to be something going on because Phil had turned up at the station without handcuffs.

[tammyy2j]

Where is Chelesa suppose to be? I think Libby is gone from Oxford as in kicked out or has she finished her studies there?

I thought Claudette would know Phil as Vincent grew up near them

[tammyy2j]

Max will need a tougher solicitor

[Kim]

Where is Chelesa suppose to be? I think Libby is gone from Oxford as in kicked out or has she finished her studies there?

I thought Claudette would know Phil as Vincent grew up near them

She had finished her original course but started a Masters. She was also working at the college as a research assistant. If she has been kicked out then she'd presumably be unemployed also or hiding the fact that she was in a basic job somewhere else. For all we know she could have left the Masters course of her own accord - I can't see Denise taking the news well if Libby had dropped out and Libby would know that. At one point Libby wanted to go to a university closer to home or not at all and Denise was pressuring her for Oxford.

Presumably Chelsea is still in Spain. It was where Libby and Chelsea went when they left in 2010 after the truth about Lucas was exposed. Libby took a sabbatical so would have returned to Oxford in 2011, whereas Chelsea had no ties.

[Dazzle]

Max will need a tougher solicitor

Max's lawyer was exactly the kind of inept duty solicitor I imagined for Jay. Maybe they both had the same one!

It's kind of laughable that the aging Phil could batter the strapping Vincent and leave him looking terrorised, but I must admit that Phil looks pretty scary when he's all worked up.