THE RIGHT TO SILENCE

The Right to Silence



The Right to Silence

Introduction

Order No. 6 defines in detail the right to a fair trial, including the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal, the presumption of innocence , and other secondary rights (of time and facilities to prepare his defence, legal assistance, the opportunity to question witnesses, the free assistance of an interpreter). However, in this paper, we will analyze the Article 6 of ECHR with reference to the provisions in ss 34-38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Discussion

The CJP Order Act 1994 brought significant modifications in the right of silence. The failure of the accused at some point in the police inquiry to state the truth which is afterwards relied on judicial trial, or the failure of the accused to provide evidence at courtyard, might be the subject at the present of remark at trial. The courtyard might depict suitable conclusions.

Similarly, the ECHR contains no express provision of the personal scope of the rights guaranteed in their rights and freedoms. According to Article 6 Para. 1 ECHR has "everyone" the right to have his case is heard in a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time. More precise information about the personal scope of the Convention is missing. However, Article 25 ECHR, that not only individuals and non-governmental organizations or associations of persons are eligible to submit an individual complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights; from this is derived, in part, that state agencies generally cannot rely on the Convention rights. The federal court could leave open the question in relation to the National Bank nor, while is undisputed that the guaranteed rights and freedoms in the ECHR not only natural but also legal persons of private law entitled.

"You have the right to remain silent. If you decide to talk to a police officer, anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You have the right to consult an attorney before questioning, and you have an attorney while questioning you. If you cannot afford an attorney, you will provide one if you wish, before being interrogated. If you decide to answer the questioning, you have the right to stop answering at any time. You can stop answering the interrogation at any time to consult a lawyer, and you can have it with you during questioning present or future."

According to s. 35 of the POA 1994 tells us about the effect of accused's silence at trial, yet little is known about where it comes into reality and reaches even more of international law. This phrase came from one of the most significant criminal trials for the United States, the same that was born in the neighbouring state of Arizona and came to be resolved within the American Supreme Court. In the year 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona a young woman of 18 was kidnapped and brutally outraged, being released moments after these terrible events. Thus, the woman appeared before the local police, stating the victim that her attacker ...