if it ain't BoZo

[svenrico]

Future headline when the payoff is revealed - ' Di*k gets golden handshake '.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Seeker

BoZo has a police questionnaire to be filled out honestly.

He has lied in previous employment (and been caught)
He has lied to his wives/mistresses (and been caught)
He has lied to the British people (and been caught)

...so he will complete a questionnaire honestly?

Originally Posted by garynortheast

Maybe this is a new investigation technique for the Met - sending out questionnaires to suspected criminals about their law breaking, and prevailing upon their honesty to fill said questionnaire. "Did you ramraid that post office?". "Did you swindle the taxman out of a lot of money?". "Did you commit an act of genocide?". Did you hold a sh!tload of illegal parties during lockdown?".

Maybe using a questionnaire is a new technique but the principle of asking questions of suspects and witnesses to build evidence is as old as it gets.

I think I can guess what Boris's answers will be, though: One is generally advised to answer "No comment" if there's a risk of self-incrimination. 'Innocent until proven guilty' principle applies and there's no obligation to offer proof or otherwise do the investigator's job for them. Bigger challenge for Boris might be controlling his ego and overcoming his desire to want to demonstrate his own belief that he is absolutely right. Will he listen to his legal advisors?

Unless the Met go as far as arresting and cautioning him, of course, in which case he'll have to balance the right to remain silent with the "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court" bit.

In legal process, it's not really about the truth it's only about what can be proved (or not). Whether we like it or not, the system's not as black and white or as perfect as many would have us believe.

We'll never see the documents exchanged unless it gets presented in Court in future and that will only happen if the case is very, very solid - what are the chances of it being suppressed for other 'political' reasons?

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by Ruffy

Unless the Met go as far as arresting and cautioning him, of course, in which case he'll have to balance the right to remain silent with the "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court" bit.

"Questionnaires being sent out to the attendees of Downing Street parties that may have broken Covid laws will be the written equivalent of police interviews under caution."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2013550.html

The first Prime Minister ever to be under police caution.

Sorry, Scotland, he's heading your way on Monday (he's running away as usual - he may be looking for a fridge to hide in )

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by Seeker

"Questionnaires being sent out to the attendees of Downing Street parties that may have broken Covid laws will be the written equivalent of police interviews under caution."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2013550.html

Thanks. I haven't been paying close attention. Interesting article to read.

It seems my anticipation is reasonably well aligned to what better-qualified others are suggesting: Plenty of "no comment" responses to keep the investigators' task hard - I can't believe anyones got a "killer defence" (as the article puts it).

[redtrummy]

Quote The first Prime Minister ever to be under police caution.

Sorry, Scotland, he's heading your way on Monday (he's running away as usual - he may be looking for a fridge to hide in )



Please keep him!

[garynortheast]

Originally Posted by redtrummy

Sorry, Scotland, he's heading your way on Monday (he's running away as usual - he may be looking for a fridge to hide in )

Please keep him!

If they have any sense they'll take him up to Cape Wrath and kick him off the edge.

[svenrico]

Originally Posted by Ruffy

Thanks. I haven't been paying close attention. Interesting article to read.

It seems my anticipation is reasonably well aligned to what better-qualified others are suggesting: Plenty of "no comment" responses to keep the investigators' task hard - I can't believe anyones got a "killer defence" (as the article puts it).

I wouldn't think the questionnaires would allow 'no comment' responses other wise what is the point of them. But what do they still need to know apart from confirm who was present ? The rules that were set had been broken hadn't they; what is there left to decide apart from the fines ?!

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by svenrico

I wouldn't think the questionnaires would allow 'no comment' responses other wise what is the point of them.

They can't not allow it. "No comment" is simply the manifestation of the right to remain silent, as outlined in the caution. It's the investigators' task to gather evidence, so they have to ask questions. But there's no obligation on anyone else to help or make it easy, so it's a fishing expedition really.

Originally Posted by svenrico

But what do they still need to know apart from confirm who was present ? The rules that were set had been broken hadn't they; what is there left to decide apart from the fines ?!

You're right, they still need to know who was present to be able to make any charges stick. I guess it's all about the mechanics of the legal system. It needs someone more qualified and experienced than me to comment really but it's perhaps easier said than done for the Police:

• they have to prove there were gatherings (probably ok on that one now)
• they have to prove which individuals were in attendance (possibly partially achieved given the photos etc. but I guess the questionnaires will also approach this?)
• they have to examine and overcome any "reasonable excuses" that individuals may offer (perhaps they're hoping to get insight on this from the questionnaires too?)
• they've also probably still got to get over the legal hurdle that comes from the claim that "it was a work event" and therefore exempt from this particular law. (I guess the prior culture of similar working practices incl. events and boozing on the job could make this more difficult - unpalatable against common sense for most of us but a legal issue nonetheless.)
• they have to exhaust any other possible legal defences that may be used (whatever they may be - the obvious ones from the legislation but also anticipating the sort of loopholes and arguments that make criminal defence lawyers/barristers rich by dragging out process with case law debate etc!)

The burden of proof for criminal law is "beyond reasonable doubt" - an accused person doesn't have to prove innocence, only introduce enough doubt that guilt is reasonably in question - a media allegation or a 'popular public opinion' probably won't be enough in the eyes of the law.

Whilst a confession in response to questioning would be great to get, it's not something that can be forced. In reality, no-one is going to want to incriminate themselves or their colleagues/bosses. But equally they're not going to want to lie, thus bringing us back to "no comment", which keeps the burden on the investgators to find their evidence elsewhere.

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by garynortheast

If they have any sense they'll take him up to Cape Wrath and kick him of the edge.

just tie him to one of the targets

[Seeker]

BoZo was allowed to read the evidence against him before answering any questions.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2018198.html

yes, that's the way police investigations are normally handled, I'm sure. Any bets there will be no repercussions from the investigation?