Rethink on right to silence at trial
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.MICHAEL HOWARD, the Home Secretary, may back down over the Criminal Justice Bill proposal to restrict defendants' rights to silence at criminal trials.
He is seriously examining the objections of Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the Lord Chief Justice, who last week castigated clause 28 of the Bill obliging judges to compel an accused to enter the witness box.
Lord Taylor's onslaught was part of an outspoken three-pronged attack by peers and judges on key planks of the Government's law and order programme. Mr Howard is already poised to drop the controversial proposal for government-appointed police committee chairmen contained in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, to head off a Lords revolt.
In cases where defendants have signalled that they will not offer evidence at trial, clause 28 would require judges to 'call upon' them to do so. Refusal to go into the witness box would risk the court or jury drawing adverse inferences. Lord Taylor believes it is sufficient for judges to have a discretion, exercisable in individual cases depending on their circumstances, to make adverse comments during summing-up on an accused's failure to testify.
He argues that a refusal to testify might be seen as defiance of the judge, which could have a more adverse effect on a jury than a judge's comments when summing-up.
Mr Howard and Home Office colleagues believe a discretionary power might serve to intensify the danger highlighted by Lord Taylor, whereas a blanket rule would mean all cases received the same treatment. But they have recognised that the objections of the Lord Chief Justice must be studied carefully.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments