[SixSigma]

while I appreciate this is a US legal case, in the UK the right to silence can be used against a defendant. One thing that puzzles me, though, is how am I supposed to know what I will rely on in court before I am on trial?

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.

Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:

* fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;

* fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;

* fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or

* fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence. There may be no conviction based wholly on silence. Further it is questionable whether a conviction based mainly on silence would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

[foxhill]

you most certainly have the right to silence in the UK.

> while I appreciate this is a US legal case, in the UK the right to silence can be used against a defendant

as you correctly identified, only inferences in a somewhat defined range of cases can be made.

> One thing that puzzles me, though, is how am I supposed to know what I will rely on in court before I am on trial?

if you fail to answer a question during the investigation, and then later rely on the answer of that question in court. before you get anywhere near a court room, you must know what you have been charged with, arrested, and interviewed, etc. (unless of course you're a terrorist, then, you know, fuck you)

and yes, the ECHR wouldn't be happy with any inferences drawn from silence. i'm sure if a case hinged on these inferences, and the defendant was found guilty, an appeal to them would likely be successful.

although you wont want to hold your breath waiting for it, ~7 years is a long time..

[demallien]

This is true, but inferences from silence are much more problematic when you haven't said anything. If I tell the police a story about what I had been up to that afternoon, and then they say "right so if that's true, why was the victim's blood on your shoes?", and I choose at that point not to answer, it's suspicious, and can be played as such in court.

If, on the other hand, I have said nothing other than "I'm not speaking without discussing with my lawyer first", it's much easier for your legal counsel to paint you as just a cautious individual, rather than someone that is trying to cover up a lie.

tldr, "don't talk to the police" is also good advice in Commonwealth countries, not just the US.