Under s.34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, detainees are given the right to remain silent. However, if the detainee has consulted a lawyer, inferences could be drawn. This was upheld in the Rice v Connolly case. The appellant was convicted for obstruction a police in execution of his duty. However, his conviction was quashed as nobody is obliged in common law to answer police questions. Hence, protection is given to individuals as they have discretion whether to answer police’s questions. As it is citizen’s right to not incriminate himself, prosecution would bear the burden of proof that defines guilty as ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
Under s 76 PACE, it is held that confessions are admissible in court unless the confession has been obtained by oppression (torture or degrading treatment) or as a consequence of anything that is likely to render the confession unreliable. This is supported by s.60 of PACE that requires interviews to be tape recorded. However this is a weak protection as this does not protect individuals questioned outside the interview room. A voir dire may be held to determine whether the confession was obtained in a proper manner. This protects the rights of a citizen as it deters police from abusing their powers to obtain a conviction, however proving inadmissibility in courts may not be easy.
A person held in custody has rights to inform someone(s.36 PACE) and to see a lawyer, privately and free of charge (s.58 PACE). However, these rights may be suspended up to 36 hours if the detention is an indictable offence, or that the police have grounds to believe that it would interfere with evidence, alerting other suspects or injury to others. The drawback of these rights are that may also be no available lawyers due to insufficient funding even though the right has been codified and implemented into the law.
In the case of R v Samuel, the defendant was refused access to a lawyer after detention of 6 hours. Police claimed that there was a risk of other suspect being warned. However the court held that the denial of access was unjustified and hence confession was deemed inadmissible. It can be seen that protection of individuals are given
The PACE safeguards are inadequate as each individual safeguard can be avoided. At times, the powers are necessary for the protection of public. Several remedies have been introduced to counter abuse of police powers. This includes self-defense, habeas corpus(victim unlawfully arrested to secure immediate release) and legal proceedings to be brought against the police. This promotes the rights of individuals; hence it can be more balanced to police powers.
by
zhilinglim27gmailcom (student)
