SILENCE

IS THERE any valid reason why defendants in criminal cases should have an
absolute right to silence, and why judges and juries should not take a
refusal to speak into account when making their decisions?

Common sense suggests otherwise. A person may have innocent reasons for
choosing not to speak in his or her defence. But such situations occur more
often in the world of the cinema than in real life. It is widely suspected
that the right is abused.

An expert group set up to make proposals for the reform to silence has
caused particular anxiety. The Director of Public Prosecutions is among
those who think a change in the law necessary in this area. And it is easy
to see how, in investigating fraud, the authorities can be frustrated.

That is only one example of the need for law reform to meet changing
conditions. The present laws were enacted long before the invention of the
computer, long before the phrase ``money laundering'' entered the English
language. Criminals have found new means of self-protection and of
concealing illicit gains. The law must catch up.

To modify the existing absolute right is not an onslaught on civil
liberties, merely an obvious step towards striking a reasonable balance. But
if, as must be hoped, the Government proceeds, it must act skilfully as well
as swiftly.

Legislation must be drafted with great care. It must not endanger a genuine
right, the presumption of innocence. And it must contain no loopholes.
Inadequate legislation, permitting abuse of rights and exploitation of
technicalities, would undermine the object of the exercise.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett