In a democratic state like United Kingdom. the components bask several signifiers freedom and protection from maltreatments by any individual. authorization or entity. Such rights are non limited to people with good standing but besides cover people who are accused of a offense. Those accused of offenses are granted with rights to turn out their artlessness. These rights has its similarity with the United States of America’s landmark instance. Miranda v. Arizona. where the groundss against the accused were found inadmissible because the accused was non informed of his rights when arrested and investigated.
In short. the dismissal of the said instance showed that the guilt of an accused can be nullified by mere failure of the authorization to supply such rights. In add-on. it besides shows that strong belief is a affair of life that requires full protection of the accused’s rights. In this paper. the Torahs of the provinces and the law shall be considered an indispensable beginning of the survey. At the same clip. the paper will besides integrate with the provided instances the pertinent Torahs and law in the given instance.
LITERATURE REVIEW Applicable rights of the accused and Torahs regulating the instance 1. Under Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ; a. In the finding of his civil rights and duties or of any condemnable charge against him. everyone is entitled to a just and public hearing within a sensible clip by an independent and impartial court established by jurisprudence. B. Everyone charged with a condemnable offense shall be presumed guiltless until proved guilty harmonizing to jurisprudence. 2.
Under the common jurisprudence and an international criterion 1. Privilege against self- inculpation. Harmonizing to Toby Wynn ‘s article. The Privilege Against Self- Incrimination. it is the right of the accused non to be required to reply a inquiry. unwrap a papers. or reply an question if making so would be given to imply him in the committee of a offense. Further. this privilege was officially embodied in Sec. 14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 ( Lauterpacht. 1987. p317 ) which states that ;
“The right of a individual in any legal proceedings other than condemnable proceedings to decline to reply any inquiry or bring forth any papers or thing if to make so would be given to expose that individual to proceedings for an offense or for the recovery of a punishment shall use merely as respects condemnable offenses under the jurisprudence of any portion of the United Kingdom and punishments provided for by such jurisprudence ; and shall include a similar right to decline to reply any inquiry or bring forth any papers or thing if to make so would be given to expose the hubby or married woman of that individual to proceedings for any such condemnable offense or for the recovery of any such punishment.
” 2. Right to hush. Harmonizing to Wynn. it is the right of an accused non to state anything when being interrogated by a constable after being accused of a offense. 3. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1999 a. Section 34 ;
“Where. in any proceedings against a individual for an offense. grounds is given that the accused ( a ) at any clip before he was charge with the offense. on being questioned under cautiousness by a constable seeking to detect whether or whom the offense has been. failed to advert any fact relied on in his defense mechanism in those proceedings ; or ( B ) on being charged with the offense or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it. failed to advert any such fact. being a fact which in the fortunes bing at the clip the accused could moderately hold been expected to advert when so questioned. charged or informed. as the instance may be.
When this subdivision applies. the magistrate’s tribunal. in make up one’s minding whether to allow an application for dismissal ; the tribunal. in finding whether there is instance to reply ; and the tribunal or jury. in finding whether the accused is guilty of the offense charged. may pull such illations from the failure as appear proper. ” B. Section 34 ( 4 ) . This subdivision does non prejudice the admissibility in grounds of the silence or other reaction of the accused in the face of anything said in his presence relating to the behavior in regard of which he is charged. in so far as grounds thereof would be admissible apart from this subdivision.
c. Section 35 ( 3 ) . on failure of accused’s silence in trial… the tribunal or jury. in finding whether the accused is guilty of the offense charged. may pull such illations as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give grounds or his refusal. without good cause. to reply any inquiry. Interpretation of the rights and Torahs and its application to the instance 1. Right to fair and public test. Every accused has a cardinal right to hold his instance be heard and tried before a finding of fact is rendered which shall get down from probe to the puting down of the judgement.
At the test. the accused is given sensible clip to turn out his artlessness by supplying groundss and showing informants to back up his claim. In add-on. the justice and jury are expected to be impartial in rendering their determination. 2. Right to be presumed guiltless until proved guilty. A individual who has been suspected of a offense does non needfully intend that he is guilty. His guilt shall be established by proof beyond sensible uncertainty.
Basically. proof beyond sensible uncertainty is the grade of cogent evidence which produces strong belief in an impartial head while load of cogent evidence is the responsibility of the party to present groundss on the facts sing the issue that are necessary to set up his or her defense mechanism utilizing the sum of groundss required by jurisprudence ( Legal Dictionary. 2008 ) . In any instance. the prosecution shall roll up and present plenty turn outing grounds to convert the justice and jury ( Legal Dictionary. 2008 ) .
3. Privilege against self- inculpation. Harmonizing to Toby Wynn. the privilege against self- inculpation. as an international criterion. an accused is non compelled to reply any inquiry and to supply any paperss or stuffs or to subject himself from physical scrutiny to the constable or to the jury if making so would take to his strong belief. Furthermore. harmonizing to Wynn’s article. this right is the basis of the common jurisprudence to avoid abortions of justness.
In add-on. the privilege against self- inculpation protects the accused from his right non hold inauspicious illations drawn from his failure to reply as laid down by Criminal Justice and Police Order Act 1994 ( Lloyd. 1996 ) . From the Torahs provided. it can be inferred that the commissariats of the Criminal Justice and Police Order Act 1994 is contradictory to the accused’s right to decline replying any inquiries by the look intoing officer because the tribunal is allowed to deduce strong belief from the mere silence or failure of the accused to supply groundss.
4. Right to hush is likely related to favor against self- inculpation. Normally in a instance. when the accused is being questioned. the canvasser or his legal advocate advises him to stay in silent in order to protect him from indefensible strong belief. However. silence is non absolute. It shall be established that the silence was exercised because it was advised by the canvasser to avoid divulging of facts which may be damaging to his instance. 5.
Section 34 to 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1999 provinces that the justice may pull proper illation from the accused’s failure to give grounds or refusal. without good cause. to reply any inquiry at test ; to advert certain facts on being interviewed under cautiousness or on being charged ; to account for objects. substances or Markss ; and failure to account for his presence at a peculiar topographic point ( Lloyd. 1996 ) . In the instance of R v Condron and Condron. the justice drew an illation from the failure of the accused to advert extra facts during interview.
Using these rights on the instance of Billy. on the first inquiry. it can be viewed that the judge’s way was based on Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which allows the justice to pull statutory illation from the silence of Billy while being questioned by the investigating officer. In add-on. the justice and jury deemed that the solicitor’s advice to Billy to stay soundless was because no reply can be provided. However. the facts of the instance is soundless as to the constitution of the rationality of Billy’s silence.
On the other 2nd inquiry. Billy has the right to appeal his instance on several evidences. First is the want of Billy of his right to hush and favor against self- inculpation. Second is the questionable statutory illation and last is the want of the Billy of his right to fair test. When Billy was being questioned. the canvasser advised him to maintain silent. As a legal advocate who is burdened with responsibility to protect the rights of his client. he found it proper for the accused to maintain silent because he was enduring from epileptic ictus at the event of the offense.
Mentally. Billy is incapable of replying the inquiries of the investigating officer. Furthermore. the failure of Billy to reply the inquiries should non be used against him. Therefore. his silence should hold been excused from the application of the commissariats of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Although the justice drew an illation from the silence of Billy when he was questioned by the investigating officer. it failed to set up the land of the silence as unreasonable. In the instance of R V Cowan. the load of cogent evidence to set up guilt beyond sensible uncertainty lies on the prosecution all throughout the test.
The justice must set up that the silence of Billy was unreasonable. In add-on. harmonizing to the instance of Condron V UK. silence must non be the exclusive or chief grounds against the accused. In add-on. in the instance of R v Argent. the Court of Appeals decided that history must see all the relevant fortunes bing at the clip of oppugning. Matters such as mental capacity. province of wellness. cognition and legal advice. among others. are all portion of the relevant fortunes. Billy who was enduring from epileptic ictus. which is a mental upset. was non considered by the justice.
Last. Billy was deprived of just test because the justice rejected Billy’s susceptibleness to epileptic ictus despite the fact that it was supported by medical grounds. Billy’s susceptibleness could hold established a uncertainty on the head of the jury that he can non be able to retrieve the things that surrounded the offense. The judgement could hold been more dependable if Billy was given sensible clip to remember his ideas in order to give a justifiable testimony. From the grounds provided. Billy can so hold sensible evidences to appeal his instance to the higher tribunal. Decision
The rights of accused to hush and favor against self- inculpation shall non be confused with the right of the tribunal to pull illation from failure of the accused. Every relevant circumstance environing the instance shall be given overriding importance and shall be purely investigated. Such exercising of rights shall non be randomly presumed as guilt. The justice and the jury shall weigh every land of right so that justness will non be curtailed. Again. strong belief is a affair of life. and the jury shall see to it that no life will be thrown useless in gaol by mere exercising of a groundless right.