Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


I understand the rule about not being able to force an accused to testify in his/her own trial, but that dates from when testimony was an oral process and (the threat of)torture or other duress could be used to elicit it. I cannot think why the kind of undisclosed evidence discussed here, in favour of the accused, should not be used as evidence against the accused, whether it's found on, eg, a phone belonging to him/her or someone else.
If the accused makes some statement that unquestionably betrays guilt, the solicitor, I understand, cannot present a plea of 'Not guilty', but can tell the accused that it means he must withdraw, leaving the substitute free to do so. There is a certain dishonesty in that, which may be necessary, but I can see no reason of 'Justice', 'fair trial' why, if the solicitor also finds, on a device which the accused has presented in his defence, clear evidence of guilt (eg, speaking to an accomplice or a 'mate') that fact should not also be compulsorily disclosable. I assume it is not.

Your details