[simonh]

He was taken into custody for, among other things: Failing to attend multiple bail hearings; Falsely claiming that a passport that had been legally seized by the police was lost, bearing in mind he'd previous missed bail hearings by traveling abroad; Refusing to comply with lawful requests for access to his computer, etc, etc.

There is no '5th Amendment' in the UK, no right of silence and no Miranda rights. There never have been. We do have our own limitations on the rights of police officers conducting an investigation though. If officers have the proper warrants, I think it's reasonable that they are entitled to access to computer records in much the same way they are entitled to access to any other part of someone's property, business and private records.

He was willfully obstructive and obtuse, and suffered the consequences for it, but no more than that. The sectioning is of course a matter for concern, but it requires proper medical oversight and bearing in mind his previous history of mental illness there's no particular reason to believe it was malicious.

[rwmj]

Actually there was a Right to Silence, in common law. It was removed by statue in the extremely controversial 1994 Criminal Justice Act (which many of us demonstrated against).

[simonh]

Ok, the situation is more nuanced than I might have indicated. There is a right to silence in criminal law, and you can remain silent in civil law too. You cannot be prosecuted for remaining silent, or directly legally coerced into giving a statement.

However, specific inferences can be drawn from your silence in some circumstances. For example not mentioning something in you statement to police that you later rely on for your defence in court can be taken into account.

So we don't have an absolute right to remain silent, and doing so under suspicious circumstances can get you in trouble, but you can't be prosecuted just for not making a statement.

[cunac]

I am pretty sure that if you don't provide a door key police will break door so same logic should follow that they have burden of enforcing entry

[simonh]

That's completely back asswards. They have the right to request and require access, as pecufied in their warrant, and if you refuse or are unable to comply then they have the further right of forced entry. They have no 'burden' to do so other than their general 'burden' to perform their duties.

[6d0debc071]

IIRC it's illegal to armour your door so as to prevent determined entry though.