• Home /
• Statewatch Database /
• Right to silence (2)

Right to silence (2)

01 January 1991

Right to silence
artdoc July=1994

Three leading barristers have said that removal of the right to
silence raises a serious issue of compatibility with Article 6
of the European Convention on Human Rights (the presumption of
innocence, and the right to a fair trial). The opinion of QCs
Peter Duffy, Richard Plender and Roy Amlot was commissioned by
Liberty, which plans to challenge the law at Strasbourg. Lord
Runciman, who chaired the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice,
said that the proposals would:

`put into reverse the main thrust of PACE ... If you think the
problem of police malpractice has been eliminated you are not
living in the real world. These measures will expose the
frightened and confused suspect to undue and improper pressure
that will risk wrongful convictions'. Lord Alexander, chair of
Justice, the all-party law reform group, said the proposals were
`a charter for unlimited police interrogation'.

And out of a dossier of 50 miscarriage of justice cases compiled
by Chris Mullin MP from the hundreds of cases sent to him, many
were `based on statements extracted in police custody or based
on admissions allegedly overheard by cell-mates, a feature of
controversial convictions that has not previously had the
attention it deserves'. The dossier includes cases such as the
Bridgwater 4, Satpal Ram (sentenced to life imprisonment in 1986
for a stabbing, he claims to have acted in self-defence after
being `glassed' by a racist); and Gerard Magee (convicted on
confession evidence obtained after 30 hours of interviews and
beatings at Castlereagh, and sentenced to 20 years for conspiracy
to cause explosions).
Guardian 11 & 26.4.94; Independent 5, 15, 18, 19.4.94; ACPO
Standing Sub-Committee on sled defence, arrest and restraint,
5.1.94; Independent on Sunday 10.4.94; Guardian 7.5.94.

Statewatch, vol 4 no 3, May-June 1994