Re: UK wants to end right to silence

[Ian Turton <ian@geography.leeds.ac.uk>]

> 
> I just saw some very disturbing news in a programme (Reportage) on BBC 
> World Service TV. Apparently there are moves by the Government in Britain
> to REPEAL THE RIGHT TO SILENCE. So far, as in the US (5th amend.) if arrested
> in Britain you have the right to remain silent but if you wish to say anything
> it may be used as evidence against you.

Well close - note UK != Britain and even Britain doesn't have an all
encompassing legal system. 

1) The right to silence has already gone in Northern Ireland (part of the
UK) along with jury trial (for terorist trails). The Govt plans to include
this provision in the latest Criminal Justice Bill which is certainly for
England and Wales but might not affect Scotland (I'm not sure, most of
Scots law is different). 
2) The right to silence at present means I don't have to say anything when
arrested and the prosecution can not mention this to the court even if I
come up with some plausible alibi when the case comes to trial.
3) The planned change is to allow the prosecution to mention this silence
to the court and allow the jury to draw their own inferences, so the
defence that I didn't trust the police not to frame me if I said anything
may still be valid (more so if I have an Irish accent). It will still be
impossible (well really hard) to convict someone simply because they stayed
silent.
> 
> The Government want to repeal the right to silence, obliging those arrested to 
> give an account AT THE 'SCENE OF CRIME'. A refusal to speak will be taken
> as an indication of guilt.

not quite - there is some doubt that any jury will believe that the
questions where asked at the scene of the crime rather than in the police
station infront of a double tape recorder. It is at present an arrestable
offence to refuse to give police officers certain information when they ask
this includes at least your name and address (there may be more but that
was enough for them last time I didn't talk to the police). But in general
I doubt that this will work.

> 
> The defendent will also have to give witness in court, even if attorneys 
> believe that the witness or manner of giving it may be detrimental to the
> defendents case.

Even the judiciary are upset at this proposal and it is unlikely to make it
through to law, especially considering the way the House of Lords have
taken the Police and Magistrates Bill (a related bill) to pieces this month.
The judges are upset since they will have to ask the defendant questions
and are not at alll sure what they can do if he refuses to answer.
> 
> Of course, libertarians are strongly against this, etc. But that it could
> come about at all in Britain, is an indication of the powerful backlash of
> the Right, whether with "Back to basics," "Family values," capital punishment
> (in the US), or other reactions to crime that are nothing short of extremist,
> however widespread "social decay" may be perceived to be by a generation that 
> can't understand the society to come.

Ah well they say we must get tough on terrorists (and remember that unlike
the US we have terrorists in the UK) and while we're at it we will catch
more criminals, which is the best way to measure police efficiency, and any
way if you're inoccent you've nothing to fear. 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                            "What is civilisation
> rishab@doe.ernet.in, rishab@dxm.ernet.in        but a ribonucleic
> Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410      hangover?"
> H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

all in all its bad but the general public love the idea and they have the
votes :-(

Ian Turton - School of Geography, Leeds University
	     0532 -333309