RIGHT TO SILENCE CHALLENGED

Victims of violent crime want an end to defendants "hiding" behind the
right to silence in court but civil rights experts and defence lawyers
argue that this would be a serious erosion of human rights.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said the law
sheltered defendants who kept quiet during trials. "It [the change
proposed] doesn't mean defendants will be forced to talk it just means
if they don't, juries can take it into account."

Abolishing the right to silence is one of a long list of demands by
the trust to the Government intended to tip the scales of the justice
system in favour of victims, not offenders.

The trust's lawyer, former ACT MP Stephen Franks, said New Zealand
should follow Britain's lead in allowing police to advise defendants
that their silence could be used against them, and in permitting
juries to "draw a sensible inference"."There are occasionally valid
reasons for invoking the right to silence but it has become part of
the ritual game-playing by justice system insiders."

Police-rape complainant Louise Nicholas, who lost her own case but
sparked a damning inquiry into police conduct, said the right to
silence should be abolished. "Nine times out of 10, the defendant
exercises his right to silence, but the victim has to take the stand
and have her entire life raked over and her character put under the
spotlight."

However, defence lawyer Greg King said judges already had the
discretion to direct juries to take a defendant's silence into
account, though it was rarely done. "The right to silence is
fundamental to the justice system because it means people can't be
pressured into making untrue confessions."

He dismissed calls for victims to have the right to rebut evidence.
"The victim's position is necessarily an extremely emotional one ...
but the trial process is about deciding if a particular person is
guilty or innocent. That process should not be overwhelmed by the
emotional claims of victims."

Council for Civil Liberties spokesman Michael Bott said the British
law change, after the September 11 terrorist attacks, was widely
condemned by constitutional experts as "draconian".

The right to silence and the presumption of innocence were
"fundamental to protect the rights of the individual against the might
of the state".

"This National Government has already shown it is hostile toward human
rights, with [Justice Minister] Simon Power's bid to push through
compulsion orders, which will force people to give evidence to the
police or be imprisoned, and its plans to ram people into shipping
containers."

Police and Corrections Minister Judith Collins told the conference:
"Law-abiding New Zealanders are sick and tired of seeing their rights
eroded and, in many cases, ignored in favour of the rights of
criminals. This Government is not standing for that." Ad Feedback

A spokesman for Mr Power said the Government's law and order programme
was focused on improving public safety and giving victims more rights.

[sidebar]

WHAT THE TRUST WANTS:

Sensible Sentencing Trust seeks these justice system
changes:

* Mandatory 25-year sentence after third violent offence.

* Life sentence to mean "life".

* Right of silence to be abolished.

* Legal aid for victims, not offenders.

* Financial support for victims to pay for all incurred
costs.

* No concurrent sentences.

* Juries to be given proper remuneration.

* Disclose previous convictions of offender.

* Greater accountability of judges and lawyers.

* Include victims in court proceedings.

* End lengthy court delays.