Discussion Of The Right To Remain Silent Law Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

However, under s.34 (1 )(a) there is the argument that Imtiaz's silence may lead to the jury drawing 'adverse inferences' as to his guilt. They may draw to the conclusion that he is guilty and that his silence is a cover up for his guilt. Nonetheless 'Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.' [4] Therefore, Imtiaz's silence does not necessarily mean that he is guilty.

In conclusion, it may be argued that Imtiaz's silence, may lead to adverse inferences being drawn and therefore may lead to the jury prosecuting if they believe he is withholding information.

2) This scenario is dealing with the issue of legal professional privilege it has been argued that ''…a man must be able to consult his lawyer in confidence, since otherwise he might hold back half the truth..." [5] it is 'a fundamental human right' [6] therefore Imtiaz may wish for this right to be respected.

It has been argued that it is down to 'the jury should consider whether it was reasonable for a defendant to rely on such advice.' [7] This matter was developed further by application of a 'two stage test for juries to consider before drawing an adverse inference.' [8] 

There must be consideration whether there has been a 'waiver' [9] of privilege. Where there is a waiver it has been stated 'that lawyer who gave the advice may have to give evidence.' [10] As Imtiaz has only stayed silent regarding legal advice, 'this will not waive his privilege.' However, if reasoning follows, this would amount to a waiver as illustrated in R v Bowden. [11] 

3) The issue in question is identification evidence such evidence, is governed under PACE, [12] a witness is given the opportunity to identify the accused. Arguably 'it provides a safeguard against mistaken identity,' trying to reduce miscarriages of justice. Essentially under Code D3.1 there must be a 'record of first description.' However, 'the court may refuse to allow evidence if the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.' [13] 

The issue of street identification arises, regarding Imtiaz. This is carried out under Code D3.2 as the identity of Imtiaz was 'unknown' there must have been compliance with D3.2 (a-e) to ensure that Alice's identification was not swayed for example, by showing her an image of a likely suspect. There must also a record made of the witness's description.

Arguably if Imtiaz disputes such accusations and is adamant he is not guilty he may request an ID parade. This matter was discussed in R v Forbes [14] which held that 'para 2.3 imposes a mandatory obligation on the police to hold an identity parade whenever a suspect disputes an identification.' [15] 

With regard to the identification of Shannon, the jury may be directed to identify her from the Still image. They must be 'warned of the risk of mistaken identity and of the need to exercise particular care…' [16] there may be consideration given as to the 'changes of appearance of the accused.' However, in this instance it has been argued that 'a full Turnbull [17] direction is inappropriate.' [18] 

In conclusion, the identification regarding Imtiaz may be excluded as no ID parade followed. With regards to Shannon, the still image may be excluded as it may be of poor quality and could be unreliable due to the pixel quality as it is taken from CCTV footage and may show discrepancies.

4) This situation looks at 'opinion evidence' [19] generally "Witnesses must speak only to that which was directly observed by them." [20] Jaspreet is an exception to this rule under 'expert evidence' having an expertise in facial mapping. Expert evidence applies where a 'jury needs further guidance upon a matter'. Such evidence is admissible where the 'witness has acquired, by study or practice, the necessary expertise on the subject.' [21] There is argument for its 'justification' [22] as illustrated in Buckley v Rice. [23] 

There must be an insight regarding the qualification of experts as illustrated in R v Withers. [24] Arguably, 'a judge has the power to remove an expert's status and limit his/her evidence to matters of fact alone.' [25] Such evidence is not 'necessary where the matter in question does not call for specific expertise.' [26] 

Arguably, 'if a particular issue does not require specialist knowledge, an expert should not be called…' [27] Hence, 'where a particular matter falls within the knowledge and experience of the jury… expert evidence will not be admissible.' [28] Certain circumstances may permit such evidence as being 'admissible' [29] . However, a person must show 'a competent level of expertise in his field.'

With regards to facial mapping it has been held 'that the expert's could provide the jury with a useful basis…' [30] as illustrated in R v Clarke. [31] The case of R v Hookway [32] argued that where 'images were of exceptionally high quality… the evidence was highly probative' [33] therefore, in support of such evidence.

In conclusion it may be argued that the jury are quite capable of assessing the two photographs. It may be established that a lay person may reach the same conclusion as an expert therefore no requirement is needed for Jaspreet's opinion. However, if a complex matter regarding facial mapping had applied then Jaspreet may have been permitted as supported by Clarke.

5) Shannon has quite clearly made a confession. [34] However, her earlier confession may be 'adverse to her interests' [35] as it was made to 'a party who is not a specific authority' [36] With regard to admissions it is argued that 'in any proceedings a confession made by an accused person may be given in evidence against him…' [37] 

Confessions may be excluded if 'obtained unfairly' this can be argued by Shannon where she was questioned by the security officers without caution. This falls under s.76 (2) [38] which focuses on whether there was use of 'oppression.' [39] Any evidence provided must be of 'free will which must exist before a confession is voluntary.' [40] 

An oppressive statement may constitute an 'unreliable confession' [41] by Shannon, such unreliability is judged using a 'hypothetical test.' [42] Such actions by the prosecution result in 'exclusion of evidence.' As the security officers did not caution Shannon before interviewing her, it may be argued that there may be no such record of the exact wording of Shannon's confession as illustrated in Doolan. [43] If there is a belief that such Shannon's confession may have an '…adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings…' [44] it may be excluded from proceedings.

There must be an insight whether Shannon's interview with the police may be 'tainted' by breaches of 'Code C' [45] There was the argument put forward that 'a breach cannot be cured by later interviews' [46] meaning that previous interview technique cannot be corrected. However, it was later argued that 'there could be no universal rule that… all the subsequent interviews must be tainted and evidence of them must be excluded.' [47] 

In conclusion Shannon may argue that her original confession was made under pressure however, as her later interview was carried out under caution and she confessed this may arguably suggest that she may not be able to rely on exclusion of evidence in her later interview.