Letter: We must maintain our right to silence
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: Roger Leng's research for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice ('Ending right to silence 'will not increase convictions' ', 2 February) should make the Home Secretary think again about abolishing the right to silence. Not only is the right exercised in a tiny number of cases, but only about half of those cases result in acquittals, often for reasons unconnected with the suspect's silence.
Nevertheless, it remains an important protection against oppressive and misleading questioning, particularly for the weak and vulnerable. Abolishing the right - and placing greater pressure on suspects to talk - is likely to lead to more false confessions. Retaining it should encourage the police to increase the search for evidence from an independent source.
Abolition would also bring serious practical consequences. You cannot force a suspect to speak; therefore you have to punish the silence by invoking the uncertain legal concepts of 'corroboration' and 'adverse inferences'. In other words, the suspect is penalised by the dangerous device of letting silence prove, or help to prove, guilt. A weak and unsatisfactory case may be propped up to secure a conviction by the negative evidence of silence. In Northern Ireland, where the right to silence was abolished in 1988, this approach to proving guilt has been controversial and unevenly applied in the courts.
Finally, there is a real point of principle at stake. The right to silence reflects the age-old British law that the State must prove guilt by its own evidence and not out of the mouth of the accused - a law adopted and respected by many other nations, most notably in the famous Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This principle should not be thrown away for the sake of a few bad cases and political expediency.
Yours faithfully,
PETER THORNTON
Chair
The Civil Liberties Trust
London, SE1
4 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments