Letter: Confessions that lead to conviction
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.Sir: Your correspondent Rhodri Powell (Letters, 25 August) mistakenly states that an uncorroborated confession is not admissible in evidence.
It is the fact that the police do not have to look beyond a confession in order to obtain a conviction which makes it so important that a suspect should not be put under pressure to answer police questions - the inevitable result of abolishing the right of silence.
The controversy surrounding the new caution demonstrates that it will be impossible for the police to advise suspects about the consequences of remaining silent. The caution fails to point out that there must be evidence other than the accused's silence before a case can be brought at all, and even lawyers have difficulty in predicting the circumstances in which a court is likely to draw an adverse inference from silence.
Yours faithfully,
ROGER EDE
Secretary to the Criminal
Law Committee
The Law Society
London, WC2
31 August
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments