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