Exercising a right to silence

[Andy008]

If somebody is arrested and chooses to remain silent when interviewed by police, can inferences be made from their silence then and there, or only if they are subsequnetly charged in light of other evidence (i.e. witness statements, forensic etc)?

[Will__]

I haven't been involved in this but my understanding is that no inference at all can be made from excercising one's RIGHT to remain silent, and this is true whether or not someone's been charged as well, and remains true regardless of forensic evidence or statements.

Nothing negative or positive can be drawn from this by the police, but I would wonder about this if I was on the Jury and discovered that someone had refused to say anything at all. I mean how can one infer anything BUT something pejorative from that?

I'll be following this one with interest.

[brachiopod]

I don't quite understand your question, Andy. The police can basically make any inferences they like "then and there" - whether they charge you or not depends on what evidence they have, or any 'reasonable' suspicion, irrespective of whether or not you say anything.

As for remaining silent per se, remember the police caution says "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence".

This means that in court, a judge is allowed to comment upon the fact you said nothing to suggest guilt.
The inference being that if the suspect does not explain their actions after being cautioned, the court are entitled to regard it as suspicious.
It is assumed that an innocent person would want to give their defence immediately and that the longer somebody take to explain themselves, the more likely it is that they are lying.

[Hippy]

I think this was changed with the introduction of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). It means that the Police people have a guilt-trip lever to get the suspect to start talking, and thereby open the floodgates leading to the suspect incriminating themself, perhaps falsely and due to Police bamboozling and quick fire questions. If a suspect asks for a solicitor, remains silent until he or she arrives and thereafter chooses to make little or no comment to Police people questioning then it makes their job a lot harder. They have to do some detective work and turn up some real evidence. What a bore. Much rather coerce an admission from the suspect. After all, (so the police line goes) the suspect would not be being questioned if they were not guilty!

In court, the Judge might well direct that the accused proffered no explanation at the police station because they are guilty, but if the defence were to explain that the suspect's reasonable mistrust of the Police people who would twist anything that they said to obtain a confession of any sort, and they felt that the severe coercion to talk was evidence of this Police bias, the Judge would be ill advised to make his assertion about guilt, as it would be a handle for a future appeal.

Despite the Police caution, the Parliamentary debate over PACE resulted in no withdrawal of the right to silence, and the presumption of innocence. It is up to the Police people to gather their evidence and make a convincing case in court if necessary. It is not for the suspect to help them in this quest.

[Ouisch]

If they've arrested you in the first place, they already suspect you of something. In the US, the Miranda rights state: "You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." So they're more or less implying that it's better to keep your mouth shut until you get an attorney.

[Grunty]

The words underlined by Brachiopod were inserted into the Act to cover false alibis. If you are under arrest and you know you were somewhere else at the relevant time, you would presumably want the police to check it out so that you can go home and eat a decent dinner. Hippy is right in one small detail, that guilt cannot be inferred, and it is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Incidentally, the words "against you" were removed from the English caution many years ago on the grounds that witnesses are required to say what they know, whether it is for or against any individual or even neutral.

[Hippy]

Ouisch - How true. I wonder how long it will be before the Police in the UK replace the use of "suspect" (a person believed to have committed a crime without certain proof) with the now common USA word for the same phenomenon, "perpetrator" or "perp." (a person who has performed a crime). Maybe a small shift, you might say, but a significant one nevertheless.

From Latin: "suspicere", to mistrust, becomes "perpetrare", to perform. From a suggestion of maybe to a definite certainty of guilt.

[Andy008]

To put the question into context, I was arrested 2 years ago when a witness identified me on the street as having assaulted his friend with a metal pole, occasioning a serious head injury. The witnesses and the aggrieved were all drunk according to their statements. I participated in an ID procedure, during which all 4 witnesses failed to pick me out. Forensic testing on my clothing failed to yield blood of the aggrieved. The case against me was subsequently dropped. One witness stated that he helped police to search for a weapon, to no avail.

My point then is that, circumstantial evidence aside, had they found a weapon, I could simply have declined to comment, as I would have, and still do, maintain that my fingerprints were not on it, and therefore I could not have been responsible.

(Incidentally, the incident occurred at around 2 am on a weekend. The drunken witness helped police search for a weapon but could not find it. To my amazement, no daylight search was ever conducted)