Ending right to silence 'will not increase convictions'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.ABOLITION of the right to silence of suspects under police interrogation would affect only a small number of cases and would be unlikely to increase convictions of guilty people, according to research conducted for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, writes Terry Kirby.
The study undermines the argument put by the police that the retention of the right to silence allows guilty people to escape justice. The Royal Commission is expected to make a recommendation on reform of the right to silence in its report in June.
The research, by Roger Leng, of the Law Faculty at the University of Birmingham, concludes: 'Reform of the right to silence . . . would have a limited effect in enhancing the prospects of convicting guilty offenders in only a very small proportion of cases.'
Mr Leng says in more than 1,000 cases the right to silence was used in only 5 per cent, with convictions in roughly half. This suggests the conviction of a guilty person could have been hampered in 2 or 3 per cent of cases.
In 10 per cent of acquittals and cases dropped before to trial, the defendant was silent during interrogation. But the majority failed for unconnected reasons.
Concern about 'ambush' defences by suspects who have remained silent is misplaced, he says. True 'ambush' defences are rare and mostly due to the failure of police to allow suspects to explain their defence.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments