Eastenders - Current Episode Discussion - VIII

[Glen1]

I'm a bit hazy about this but wasn't the law changed some time in the 1990s so that a court could consider silence or "no comment" as, if not a presumption of guilt, at least no longer a presumption of innocence. Until then the law held that the prosecution had to prove its case and if the defendant remained silent or just answered no comment, the jury were not allowed to draw any inference from it, but this changed, so that the jury could draw its own conclusion from the defendant's refusal to answer. I seem to remember this because there was a big "human rights" outcry about this change of law at the time. Does anyone know more about this?

1. "You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but what you say may be given in evidence."
This was the original caution given upon arrest and again prior to interview .
2.
You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial."
This was drawn up by, guess who, Michael Howard .in an attempt to stop the no comment, and sometimes the complete silent responses to questions. This was thought to be too much for the average bobby to remember and the next caution was introduced.
3.You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
So you are right Parkerman also there was a a human rights issue based upon the caution giving a right to silence but then being a threat if that right was used.