Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee

The Right to Silence: An Examination of the Issues
Chapter 1 - Introduction

[Back to Table of Contents]


1.1 Focus of the Inquiry

The Committee's Terms of Reference refer to the following aspects of the right to silence:

  • the right of a suspect to refuse to answer questions put to him or her by criminal investigators; and

  • the right of an accused person to choose whether or not to testify at his or her trial; and

  • the consequences for the accused of exercising either or both of these rights; in particular, the question of whether any adverse inferences can be drawn from, or adverse comments made about, the exercise of the right to refuse to answer questions and/or the right to not testify.

Although all of these aspects are often grouped together under the title of the `right to silence' (or sometimes `right of silence'), it is important to give separate consideration to each of the various aspects of the right. As Lord Mustill commented in R v Director of the Serious Fraud Office; Ex parte Smith [1993] 1 AC 1, 31:

Each of these immunities is of great importance, but the fact that they are all important and that they are all concerned with the protection of citizens against the abuse of powers by those investigating crimes makes it easy to assume that they are all different ways of expressing the same principle, whereas in fact they are not. In particular, it is necessary to keep distinct the motives which have caused them to become embedded in English law; otherwise objections to the curtailment of one immunity may draw a spurious reinforcement from association with other, and different, immunities commonly grouped under the title of a `right to silence'.

For this reason, the Committee has been careful in this Issues Paper to distinguish between the right to refuse to answer questions and the consequences of such a refusal (the `pre-trial right to silence'), on the one hand; and the right to not testify and the consequences of not testifying (the `at-trial right to silence'), on the other.

The view the Committee has taken of its Terms of Reference are that they actually only require the Committee to consider the consequences of exercising the pre-trial and at-trial rights to silence, and not the rights themselves. It is important that this be clearly understood: the Committee's inquiry is not concerned with the abolition of these rights in the sense that the Committee might recommend either that it be made an offence for a suspect to refuse to answer questions put by the police, or that an accused person be compelled to give evidence at his or her trial. A suspect will continue to have a choice about whether or not they answer police questions, and the accused will continue to have a choice about whether or not to testify. The focus of the inquiry is instead on the consequences of the accused exercising either of these rights; and in particular, on the question of whether it should be possible for a court to draw adverse inferences from (or make adverse comments about) the accused's refusal to answer police questions or failure to testify.

1.2 Future conduct of Inquiry

In June, members of the Committee will pursue the inquiry by travelling to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, in order to gain first-hand information about the operation of their respective legislative schemes.

On its return, and after receipt of submissions, the Committee will hold public hearings. The dates for these hearings will be publicly advertised, while those making written submissions will be informed by mail. The Committee preference is that those proposing to give evidence at a hearing should first provide a written outline of the evidence they intend to give.

The Committee will attempt to complete its deliberations by the end of August, so as to enable the tabling of its recommendations in the 1998 Spring Session of Parliament.

1.3 Structure of this Issues Paper

In approaching these Terms of Reference the Committee has decided that it would be helpful to release this Issues Paper. The Issues Paper can be approached in either of two ways. The quickest way is to read this first part of the Paper and to then go straight to the concluding part, which sets out the issues which the Committee believes it will be necessary to consider in formulating its recommendations. These are the only truly essential parts of the Paper.

The five parts in between (comprising the second to the sixth parts of the Paper as a whole) are intended to provide background information for those wishing to make submissions to the Committee. Each deals with a distinct area relevant to the inquiry, and readers should feel free to read as many or as few of these parts as they find informative. Their subject areas are as follows:

  • The second part of the Issues Paper deals with the origins of the right to silence. This is included because of the fact that arguments about the right to silence are often couched in historical terms.

  • The third part of the Issues Paper contains a statement of the right to silence as it currently applies in Victoria. Before any changes to the present rules can be considered, it is obviously essential that the operation of those rules be understood.

  • The fourth part of the Issues Paper contains brief statements of the law relating to the right to silence as it applies in several other common law jurisdictions. It is obviously intended to allow comparisons to be made between the position in Victoria and elsewhere.

  • The fifth part of the Issues Paper contains an overview of other inquiries which have been conducted into the right to silence in Australia. The purpose of this part is twofold: first, to set the present inquiry in the context of those inquiries which have preceded it; and secondly, to survey the reasons for changing the right to silence or for retaining it in its present form which other inquiries have found to be persuasive or compelling.

  • The sixth part of the Issues Paper examines the position in the United Kingdom. The Committee's terms of reference clearly require it to consider the desirability of introducing legislation similar to that which now applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This part also contains an overview of the various English inquiries into the right to silence which preceded the current legislative scheme. The purpose of this is again twofold: first, to set the current scheme in its proper context; and secondly, to survey the reasons for changing the right to silence or for retaining it in its present form which have been found to be persuasive or compelling by those who have examined the right to silence in the past.


Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
© Parliament of Victoria