Sunday, July 22, 2012

CONVICTING THE INNOCENT


The right to silence looked at in New Zealand
By Kate Shuttleworth New Zealand Herald
5:30 AM Sunday Jul 22, 2012
Gil Elliott, Garth McVicar and Greg King
at the Hot Tub debate at Victoria University

Photo Kate Shuttleworth

He helped Ewen Macdonald get off a murder charge by not putting him on the witness stand, but top criminal defense lawyer Greg King can see an accused's right to silence one day coming to an end.
King was involved in a panel discussion at Victoria University's law faculty on Friday evening, discussing legal procedures with Sensible Sentencing Trust chairman Garth McVicar and Gil Elliott, the father of murdered Dunedin university student Sophie Elliott.
On the contentious issue of an accused's right to silence, King conceded the rules might one day change.
He defended Macdonald's not taking the stand in the recent high-profile Scott Guy murder trial, saying he had answered every question in a 40-hour police interview, giving the jury plenty of time to see his version of events.
But he said there was a contradiction in the system when people charged with fraud could have their right to silence removed.
"If your right to silence can be taken away from you because of benefit fraud, and you're being investigated in a murder charge ... why do you have it there?" King asked
He suggested one option in the future might be allowing the prosecution to apply to a judge for an order to make it compulsory for an offender to take the stand if it was considered vital enough.
McVicar said the right to silence created an "offender-friendly, criminal-centered legal process".
"I don't think Greg needed to rely on the right to silence in his last case [the Guy trial] - he'd already proven that a doubt existed."
But McVicar said New Zealand should follow the UK's lead in getting rid of the offender's right to silence.
"It appears our legal system is not about truth - if it was the right to silence would not exist, “said McVicar.
Elliott told the audience that King, who represented Clayton Weatherston - the man convicted of murdering his daughter -, was the only person who talked to him and his wife, Lesley, through their trial.
"The prosecution ... just ignored us.”

Peter’s Comment

Before the right to silence became law in most civilized countries many innocent people were convicted solely because of their inability to foot it with high-powered prosecutors.

It meant that the police could always get a conviction when the pressure was on them to solve a case. All they had to do was go out and arrest any pathetic specimen who couldn't defend himself. And they did.

Isn’t it better that they should not bring a charge until they have enough stand alone evidence to convince a jury?

Exposing accused people to the peril of inadvertent self incrimination is tantamount to having a law that demands that households leave doors open so that burglars have easy access.

Police and prosecutors, given the chance, will prey on people who are vulnerable. 







No comments:

Post a Comment

BEYOND THE SEAS

This is my latest historical novel  Beyond the Seas When twelve-year-old orphan Nathaniel Asker is shipped from the back alleys of London to...