Right to silence

The right may include the provision that adverse inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury regarding the refusal by a defendant to answer questions before or during a trial, hearing or any other legal proceeding.

The Latin brocard nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare ('no man is bound to accuse himself') became a rallying cry for religious and political dissidents who were prosecuted in the Star Chamber and High Commission of 16th-century England.

People coming before these tribunals were forced to make the ex officio oath by which they swore to truthfully answer the questions to be put before them without knowing what they were being accused of.

[1] After the parliamentary revolutions of the late 17th century, according to some historical accounts, the right to silence became established in the law as a reaction to the excesses of the royal inquisitions in these courts.

In the United Kingdom, laws introduced, have the suspects told they have the right to remain silent, but are now also cautioned that anything they do not reveal in questioning, but later rely upon in court may harm their defence.

The right to counsel, which also became increasingly entrenched in the US following the American Revolution, gave defendants a practical method of mounting a defense while remaining silent, and the development of the modern police force in the early 19th century opened up the question of pretrial silence for the first time.

Prior to an accused being informed of their right to legal counsel, any statements they make to police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence.

When the subject is unaware he is dealing with the police, such as in the case of an undercover operation, these protections do not exist unless the authority figure actively elicits a statement.

The court did, however, acknowledge that repeated police questioning after a defendant has asserted their right to silence raises doubts regarding the admissibility of further evidence under the confessions rule, though that was not the finding in the case.

[15] Another Supreme Court case, R. v. Hodgson, clarified that the right to silence only applied to the state and could not be used to exclude confessions made to private actors.

Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that witnesses may not have any incriminating evidence they gave as testimony used against them in separate proceedings.

"[17] But since the 1996 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 15 states that "It shall be strictly prohibited to extort confessions by torture, gather evidence by threat, enticement, deceit, or other illegal means, or force anyone to commit self-incrimination."

Since 15 April 2011,[27] any person held by the police has new rights: Witnesses under indictment (or who are cited as suspects) cannot be heard under oath, and thus do not risk prosecution for perjury.

According to § 136 Strafprozessordnung [de] (StPO, i.e. Criminal Procedure Code) a suspect, arrested or not, has to be informed before any interrogation about their right to remain silent.

According to Israeli law, the exercise of the right to remain silent may be considered as supplemental evidence in most cases, and this fact also needs to be explained to the suspect.

[36] Israeli law has not adopted the "Fruits of the Poisoned Tree" doctrine, and flaws in the process of collecting it affect only the weight of tainted evidence.

[40] At common law the leading case is Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board where Justice Cooke held, "The starting point ... [is], unless an Act of Parliament imposes or authorises the imposition of a duty to the contrary, every citizen has in general a right to refuse to answer questions from anyone, including an official.

§121: Even if the relationship is not regulated by §119, the courts may relieve a witness of the duty to testify concerning information obtained in counseling, social work, medical care, judicial assistance "or similar".

Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation.

Punishments for law enforcement officers who fail to read suspects their rights, under RA7438, are severe: besides a fine of 6,000 Philippine pesos, officials may be jailed for between eight and ten years.

122485,[47] the Supreme Court of the Philippines was asked to consider the case of Larry Mahinay y Amparado, a man convicted of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, the neighbor of his employer.

[53] Due to the increasing numbers of arrests of foreign nationals during President Rodrigo Duterte's Oplan Double Barrel, the Human Rights Affairs Office (PNP-HRAO) of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame, Quezon City has further translated the Miranda warning into four foreign languages: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese.

The officer shall then inform the male arrestee of the charge and detailed grounds for his arrest, and enlighten him that he has the right to remain silent and anything he says can and will be used as evidence in a trial.

Section 4 of Article 29 of Constitution of Ukraine[64] reads: Everyone arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention, apprised of his or her rights, and from the moment of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself, or to have the legal assistance of a defender.Article 63 of Constitution of Ukraine reads: A person shall not bear responsibility for refusing to testify or to explain anything about himself or herself, members of his or her family or close relatives in the degree determined by law.

2) a person in whose respect a measure of restraint has been imposed before the decision to prosecute him/her has been made.Consequently, the list of suspect's rights follows:[65] The suspect has the right to: know what he/she is suspected of; give testimonies or refuse testifying and answering questions; have a defense counsel and meet him/her before the first examination; produce evidence; submit motions and propose disqualifications; request that the court or prosecutor verify legality of the apprehension; submit complaints against actions and decisions of the officer who conducts operational-detective activities, inquirer, investigator, and prosecutor, and, with appropriate grounds present, have his/her security ensured.

This is commonly made by reading them out when announcing the decision on instituting criminal proceedings or arrest and then requiring a suspect or arrestee to sign the list of these rights.

At common law, and particularly following the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,[70] adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused: There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.

In John Murray v United Kingdom, the ECHR declared that the fair trial guarantee encompassed the entire legal process from the moment of arrest through to conviction.

[81] An 1864 appropriations act allowed defendants to do so while removing race restrictions,[82] and the 1987 Supreme Court case Rock v. Arkansas established a constitutional "right to take the witness stand.

Under the UCMJ, sworn military personnel, whether of enlisted, warrant or commissioned rank, have a right to remain silent that was established 16 years before the Miranda v. Arizona ruling.