The Right of Silence in the Police Station

The right to maintaining silence at a police station’s interview  is  recognized an  a legalized right  either  by convention or  explicit in most  of the worldwide legal  systems.  The particular right  is a coverage  of  numerous  issued  that are grounded  on the right of the defendant or accused  person in denying to give  answers  to the  provided  queries either before or  during the  procedure  of a court proceeding  in a law court[1].  This can also be described as the right of avoiding self incrimination. The  right normally incorporates the  offering that  adverse inferences  cannot be  developed  by  the jury  or judge in regard of the  defendant refusal  to provide  answers to the given questions during hearing, trial or any additional  legal proceedings[2]. This right is only a constitution of a small section of the rights of the defendant in general.

The significance of the silence right has mainly to do with the authority it holds in influencing the court’s or the case’s outcome.  This right therefore equips suspects with the right of democracy which is a representation of people’s power[3]. A suspect has the right to enjoy the silence right at the police station during an interrogation.  However, when a suspect chooses on remaining silent they are  charged  which is followed  by a defense  advances  where during the trial there is a danger of the court  drawing  adverse  inferences against the suspect’s  inferences  under section 34 of the criminal justice as well as  public order act of the year 1994.  Inferences that  are  adverse  can additionally  be drawn  in the situation  where the  defendant fails  in accounting  for the objects  that are  found in his possession  or presence based on section 36 and 37[4].

 

Suspects can participate in trials or legal proceeding without legal interrogations with genuine reliance of legal authority.  The right to maintaining silence at an interview in a police station cannot be considered as a basic human right.  This is because humans generally hold the right of making personal decisions through the several provided legal ways.  Remaining silent during questioning can thus be accounted as one of the strategy which holds its unique authority. This right is normally taken for granted but it holds adverse effects on the defendant as well as the justice system in general. The right offers the freedom of human protection through ensuring that authority is not utilized as the major determinant factor in the rule.

Traditionally, the silence right  has  always been recognized  as one of the significant and primary pillars of the united kingdom’s  legal system  which worked together  with  the innocence  presumption  as well as the proof’s  burden in  protecting the rights of the suspects within  the justice  criminal system.  However the law has experienced different reforms which are aimed at offering protection to the suspects as well as enhancing the general performance of the system of justice. Each individual who is charged with criminal offences is presumed as innocent until they are adequately and justifiably proven to be guilty based on legal law.  It should therefore be recalled that the silence right is much better interpreted as the liberty against self incrimination[5].  The right  is a freedom  and cannot  therefore  be perceived as  divulge information for incrimination which results  into  diverse  implications that is so essential to the right rather than the actions  of silent  maintenance.

It is misleading to make a suggestion that the silence right has remained to be absolute as this has not always been the situation.  The jury  can  interpret the situation as  an  allegations acceptance  via the silence  offered by the suspect and therefore the  failure of the suspect or the defendant  may be reminded by the judge to the jury in providing statements which is  regarded as a secure  examination[6].  In addition, it is important to note that the silence right does not hinder the jury or magistrate from indulging the defendant’s silence as a guilt in spite of the judge’s guidelines. However, in belief  the silence  right  has remained  to be unbroken  until  the development  of Public Order And  Criminal Justice Act 1994 which  formed the ground  for the present law thus destroying  the silence right  as well as eroding the presumption  principle  of maintaining  silence[7].

The philosophy behind the notion that the silence right affects the ability of the justice system to easily and fairly achieves its objective is based on that silence is guilt’s evidence.  It is widely claimed that innocent can be regarded as speaking right while guiltiness is an evoking silence privilege.  In other  words,  this is a basic concept  that  only those that  are  guilty holds something that is worth hiding and therefore silence  can be  termed as a mere guilty protection strategy. Silence at a police station’s interview may be triggered by several factors like anxiety, fear, confusion, anger and the interest of offering protection to another individual.  As such, it would be  therefore  inaccurate to state or assume  that silence  can be  regarded as a guilt reflection when  the above feelings may  trigger  the  reaction  in the particular  situations.  In addition, developing a scenario where  the suspects feels  disadvantaged after  opting to be silent  generates the pressure  of  speaking  out  regardless of whether  they are innocent  or guilty.  This situation can therefore develop the possibility of the suspect incriminating themselves and raising the probability of increasing evidence that is inaccurate and unreliable.

The right to silent to a suspect as been argued to be a primary hamper of the justice system’s investigations.  However , regardless of whether  the argument is true, this cannot  be accounted  for  since the nature of the criminal process  does not  permit  the defendant  to assist  in the investigation.  It is thus unjust to permit the suspects to incriminate themselves when this is not a necessity of the legal system.  However, when a suspect offers comments on the asked questions the justice system is able to establish grounds on which adequate investigation can be conducted.  In addition, the silence right affects the ability of the justice system because it results in the creation of trapped defenses since the defense holds more information in regard to the case and hinders the ability of the police to establish the truth.

Currently, the UK’s silence right has decreased to a phase of adverse assumptions that are being drawn.  Based on the recent studies the general investigation performance of the justice system is affected by the right in numerous ways[8].  First, suspect is highly likely to exercise their silence right if they have engaged in serious criminal offenses.  It is therefore the duty of the police to gather information in regard to the offense and the best place to start is through questioning the suspects. A suspect who has previously not  been charged with criminal offenses  are unlikely to utilize  silence and thus  the right  is  practiced  by  experienced  offenders.  The particular right therefore offers adequate protection to the offenders and provides them with a way of avoiding convictions[9].  In addition, suspects who have been charged before are likely to practice the right because they understand the system probably and may be involved in future offences.

The silence right provides more benefits to the defendants as compared to the justice system which gains nothing.  In that, the right gives more opportunities for the defendant to provide trapped and strategized evidence.  On the other hand, it benefits the justice system or the prosecutor by offering further strength.  This is because the silence creates suspicious to the police and thus the investigation process is bound to intensify in order to obtain justice. The justice system is weakened by the right by being denied the opportunity to exercise its power.  The silence right is argued to be a symbolic value depiction of essential freedom as well as civil autonomy of an individual[10].  Without the presence of the silent right authorities are bound to attend extreme power which would result in zero liberties.  The right therefore, impacts the justice system positively by enhancing fairness[11]. Basically, the right assists the prosecution in ensuring that the prosecution does not convict the wrong person thus demanding for further investigation into the offences. 

In summing up, the current right to silent law can be described as an acceptable measure which offers protection to the justice system as well as the right.  The right offers enough protection to the defendants within the imitated measures and imposition of caution.  However, in order to ensure that the right assists the justice system in accomplishing it role the law should indicate measure through which the right can or may not be utilized.  This is to ensure that justice and protection of the defendant is offered in a maximum nature without biases.

 

 

 

 

            References

Bradford, B. & Loader, I. Police, Crime and Order: The Case of Stop and Search. Sage Handbook, 2006.  Pdf

Choo, A. L.-T. Evidence. Oxford University Press, 2015

Hannibal, M. Criminal litigation 2016-2017. Place of publication not identified: Oxford Univ Press, 2016.

Player, E., et al. Remanded in Custody: An Analysis of Recent Trends in England and Wales.  Howard league and Blackwell publishing, 2010. Ltd. Pp. 231-251.

Sosa, K. In the Public Interest Reforming the Crown Prosecution Service. Policy Exchange, 2010. Pdf

            Cases

R. v Condron Times (1996) CA 93 (Crim Div). Right to silence in the police  station.

R.V Condron v Cowan (1996) Times the right of silence, legal privilege and the decision in Condron.

 

 

 

 

[1] R.V Condron v Cowan (1996) Times the right of silence, legal privilege and the decision in Condron.

 

[2] R. v Condron Times (1996) CA 93 (Crim Div). Right to silence in the police station.

 

[3] Bradford, B. & Loader, I. Police, Crime and Order: The Case of Stop and Search. Sage Handbook, 2006.  Pdf

 

[4] Bradford, B. & Loader, I. Police, Crime and Order: The Case of Stop and Search. Sage Handbook, 2006.  Pdf

 

[5] Player, E., et al. Remanded in Custody: An Analysis of Recent Trends in England and Wales.  Howard league and Blackwell publishing, 2010. Ltd. Pp. 231-251.

 

[6] Bradford, B. & Loader, I. Police, Crime and Order: The Case of Stop and Search. Sage Handbook, 2006.  Pdf

 

[7] Player, E., et al. Remanded in Custody: An Analysis of Recent Trends in England and Wales.  Howard league and Blackwell publishing, 2010. Ltd. Pp. 231-251.

 

[8] Sosa, K. In the Public Interest Reforming the Crown Prosecution Service. Policy Exchange, 2010. Pdf

 

[9] Sosa, K. In the Public Interest Reforming the Crown Prosecution Service. Policy Exchange, 2010. Pdf

 

[10] Hannibal, M. Criminal litigation 2016-2017. Place of publication not identified: Oxford Univ Press, 2016.

 

[11] Choo, A. L.-T. Evidence. Oxford University Press, 2015