We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In October the NSW government will introduce legislation
diluting the long standing legal right to remain silent when being
questioned by police investigating a crime.
"For too long it has been too easy for criminals to hide
behind rights to silence," said Premier Barry
O'Farrell.
He will amend the law to allow juries and judges to take an
"adverse inference" from an accused person who refuses to
divulge facts to police if they later produce "so-called
evidence in order to provide an excuse".
The right to silence has its origins in 19th century
England after public distrust grew of confessions extracted under
torture or duress. It is not a constitutional right like it is in
the United States, but granted under common law.
After the change, when NSW police question a person they will
say: "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you
wish to do so. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention
when questioned something you later rely on in court."
Police welcome the change as they say the right to silence can
impede investigations. But legal experts are concerned about the
impact on individual rights.
Maurie Stack OAM, a former president of the Law Society and
chairman of Stacks/The Law Firm, said on the surface the change
appeared reasonable. But he warned the justice system isn't
perfect, nor are those who get caught up in it.
"Juries can and do make mistakes," Mr Stack said.
"Human beings are prone to jump to conclusions. Sometimes a
person is innocent even when the circumstantial evidence looks
convincing.
"If all defendants were highly intelligent and well
educated and all had English as their first language, then you
probably couldn't complain about the change.
"But those charged with serious criminal offences more
often than not do not meet those criteria. They can easily make
statements to police that makes their situation appear worse - even
when they are innocent."
"Ultimately we as a society have to decide whether we
remain of the view that it is better that nine guilty persons go
free than one innocent person be convicted," Mr Stack
said.
Law Society president Justin Dowd said the right to silence was
a cornerstone of our justice system. "A person does not have
to prove his or her innocence, that is, they have the right to
remain silent," Mr Dowd said.
Bar Association vice president Phillip Boulten fears it is a
"back-door way of changing the onus and standard of proof
which has been for centuries on the Crown to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt".
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
