德語系畢業論文範文

一名因搶劫被拘留的嫌疑犯及伊斯蘭會議組織想要在沒有法律代表的狀況下儘快進行採訪。監管人員拒絕這一要求，而後一名律師被帶到警察局。在審問過程中，爲澄清被訪談者的報告，重複被提問的問題是非常必要的事情。而律師堅持這是不被允許的。然後採訪稍事休息，重新開始時該律師宣讀一份事先準備好的聲明。

考慮上述段落並特別考慮到立法、 判例法及pace實務守則，評論和批判性地評價在什麼情況下可以對一名法律代表已被中止的嫌疑犯採訪。其次，律師關於已經提出的問題不能重複的假設是否正確。第三，危險的辯護中提交預先準備好的聲明。

以下情況下，犯罪嫌疑人可以在未獲得法律意見的情況下接受採訪：

爲了調查犯罪嫌疑人可在延遲法律諮詢訪問時接受採訪的情況，首先必須探討這種拖延必須滿足的準則。

circumstances suspect can be interviewed without legal representation law essay

introduction

a suspect is in custody for robbery and the oic wants to interview him as soon as possible without legal representation. the custody officer declines this request and a solicitor is brought to the police station. during questioning it became necessary, in order to clarify the interviewee's account, to pose questions which had already been asked. the solicitor argued that this is not permitted. there is then a break in the interview and when it is re-commenced the solicitor reads out a pre-prepared statement.

consider the above paragraph and paying particular regard to legislation, case law and the pace codes of practice comment and critically evaluate under what circumstances can a suspect be interviewed when legal representation has been withheld. secondly whether the solicitor is correct in his assumption that questions which have already been posed cannot be repeated. thirdly the dangers for the defence in submitting a pre-prepared statements.

circumstances under which a suspect can be interviewed when access to legal advice is withheld:

in order to look into circumstances in which a suspect can be interviewed in the midst of delayed legal advice access, the criteria which must be met to make this delay must first be explored. the relevant legislation which governs the delay of legal advice comes from s.58 of the police and criminal evidence act 1984(pace), in particular part (6) of the section, which states;

equally, a breach of s.58 pace does not always result in a quashed conviction. in r v alliadice [7] , the grounds for refusal of legal advice for an interview included the worry that the solicitor may inadvertently warn other persons linked with the offence. the appeal against conviction was refused, as although there was a poor decision on the part of the officer for delaying advice, it was at the judge’s discretion to reverse the conviction. the judge decided against excluding the evidence under s.78 pace, as the defendant was aware of his rights, exercised them (including the right to silence), and as such the presence of legal advice would not have changed the outco