§ 31. Mr. BennettTo ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement about the right to silence.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe report of the royal com Miss ion is expected within a few months. The ability of the court to draw inferences from silence will no doubt form part of its careful scrutiny.
§ Mr. BennettDoes the Attorney-General accept that this is extremely dangerous? The royal com Miss ion was set up because of the misuse of confessions and how they are extracted and to increase the pressure on defendants to say something could be extremely dangerous. Would not it be far better to take up the evidence in today's report that the police should be much better trained in the questions that they ask, so as to ensure that we get justice, than to remove the right to silence?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not think that the one is exclusive of the other. Today's report, which is a matter for 722 my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, has its merits. Many of us have heard senior policemen say much the same.
In respect of the right to silence, I would just add that there is a widespread feeling that it is right not only that the prosecution should clarify the issues at the outset of the case, but that the defence should do so, too. If that is what is required and the defence fails to do so, there has to be some comment. The fair and balanced way in which this was achieved in the recent case of Murray, showing how any inroads into the so-called rights of silence should be treated, may provide a useful model.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanDoes my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is quite intolerable, when children have been abused or even murdered, that both persons responsible should get off scot free by remaining silent?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI certainly accept, understand and share my hon. Friend's frustration when a lack of evidence causes that to happen. It is partly a question of investigation, but it is essential in the most horrible and serious cases not merely that people be brought to justice, but that, if they are, we can be satisfied that we really have the guilty person.
§ Mr. MaclennanDoes the Attorney-General accept that the lack of a right of silence would contradict the presumption of innocence that is the bedrock of our criminal justice system? Although I do not expect him to comment in full on the research report No. 16 published by the royal com Miss ion today, will he at least draw attention to the quite unexpected finding in it—that the right to silence needs to be strengthened to protect those who are charged?
§ The Attorney-GeneralWith respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that there is some confusion in his question. When we talk about the so-called right to silence, we are really discussing whether there should be a right to comment in the event that someone, after due warning, has chosen not to speak. That is entirely different from reversing the burden of proof.
§ Sir Thomas ArnoldDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a particular problem in respect of fraud cases with section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987?
§ The Attorney-GeneralSociety has decided through Parliament that in relation to very serious frauds people should be asked questions and should be criminally liable if they refuse to answer them. From the experience of recent years, I am quite satisfied that that is an important right which society should give to the investigator, and it has played an important part in ensuring that guilty fraudsters are brought to justice.