Do we still have a right of silence ?

If you commit a crime or misdemenour, we are cautioned in the same way. "You do not have to say anything etc." This is the same if you drop litter or are arrested for murder, however if you are caught on a speed camera, you must give information under the notice of intended prosecution or face a fine of up to 拢1000 and a penalty of three points on your driving licence. This means no right of silence. I feel that this erodes our civil liberties, do you ?|||If you don't like it, walk.|||In my experience, those who exercise a right to silence usually have something to hide. Another example is answering 'no comment' in an interview. I've had people do this when there is indisputable evidence against them and it's their first offence. Had they not been so 'pig headed' and just admitted that they'd done wrong then they would have been eligible for a caution, (the lowest level of disposal for a criminal offence and no court appearance). As it was they were charged with the offence and had to go to Court with the possibility of a harsher sentence. v Others have also answered 'no comment' and still been charged.





If you are big enough to do the crime in the first place then be big enough to admit it if your caught. I did when I was caught speeding years ago.





Your right to silence does exist but it doesn't always help you to use it.|||Challenge it in court, maybe no one has!|||actually, a number of drivers have evaded prosecution by exercising their right of silence. Im not sure exactly which one it is but there is an article of the European Convention for human rights that states a person has a right to remain silent, not to incriminate theirselves, and to let the prosecution prove their case, and must not suffer any hardship as a result. If you find a website linking you to the European Convention on Human Rights, that will be able to give you more detail and the exact wording (useful if you ever receive a notice of intended prosecution) and by quoting this upon receipt of a notice of intended prosecution you will probably have the case dropped|||to paraphrase the 'new improved caution' you do not have to say anything however if you do not mention (avail yourself of the right to silence) something which you later rely on in court it may harm your defence(We'll call you a liar and imply that you made it up later0 Unlike the copper whosee statement will be corroborated by notes in his pocket book(actually Made up later but implied to have been taken at the time.)|||You can't be forced to incriminate yourself.





Though they can get you to admit anything if they take you in the back room and beat it out of you.





'SAY YOU ARE THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND!!!! SAY IT!!!! SAY IT!!!!'|||The way tyrannical laws are being legislated, we may not even have the right to breathe air much longer.|||OK, I'm the Queen of England.|||Yes you may remain silent the entire time until you get an attorney and then may speak freely|||Better way to look at it is you have a right to speak with an attorney before answering any questions.|||everyone has the right to remain silent.except for your name and address.the onus is on them to prove guilt.|||Double edged saw! I agree either way u screwed, they are going 2 make u talk one way or the other ,even if it's only" no comment." Don't u have 2 speak 2 say that?|||Technically the right of silence is still there, however the caution under the Police %26amp; Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) states





"You do not have to say anything. However it may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court"





The important bit is the "It may harm your defence if you dont mention" this basically means if you decide not to speak about an incident when interviewed and then when you get to court some time later you have a miraculous alibi a judge or jury can make up their own mind as to why you decided not to account for this when you were initially questioned.





It may seem harsh but the law was chaged to include this new caution, where as the old one "You dont have to say anything %26amp; anything you do say will be written as evidence" after 2 people were not convicted of killing a child because they both made no comment interviews and at the time the jury were not allowed to make inference as to why, so in the end there was no evidence offered.





A ridiculous loop hole in the law that needed plugging, but that is why we are where we are today.|||It is really nice to read the thoughts of those who are good at their job.





We will stamp your work, keep it sealed as a proof of copyright.





Regards|||yes because they cannot actually force you to speak or move what happen afterwards is irrelevent|||Don't forget that the full caution reads;





"you do not have to say anything, although it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned / now, something you later rely on in court"





Accordingly, your right to silence when arrested, etc, ostensibly comes with conditions attached.





So you could argue that your right to silence in general does not exist as a full right, anyway!|||Challenge it in court.