《德语系毕业论文范文》

一名因抢劫被拘留的嫌疑犯及伊斯兰会议组织想要在没有法律代表的状况下尽快进行采访。监管人员拒绝这一要求，而后一名律师被带到警察局。在审问过程中，为澄清被访谈者的报告，重复被提问的问题是非常必要的事情。而律师坚持这是不被允许的。然后采访稍事休息，重新开始时该律师宣读一份事先准备好的声明。

考虑上述段落并特别考虑到立法、 判例法及pace实务守则，评论和批判性地评价在什么情况下可以对一名法律代表已被中止的嫌疑犯采访。其次，律师关于已经提出的问题不能重复的假设是否正确。第三，危险的辩护中提交预先准备好的声明。

以下情况下，犯罪嫌疑人可以在未获得法律意见的情况下接受采访：

为了调查犯罪嫌疑人可在延迟法律咨询访问时接受采访的情况，首先必须探讨这种拖延必须满足的准则。

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