Your browser window currently does not have enough height, or is zoomed in too far to view our website content correctly. Once the window reaches the minimum required height or zoom percentage, the content will display automatically.
Alternatively, you can learn more via the links below.
This is legal information only, and not legal advice.
‘Silence is golden’ according to the famous song by American rock band, the Four Seasons. The praise of silence can also be found in the book of Proverbs in the Bible, which states (at 10:19) ‘… he that refraineth his lips is wise.’
In law, silence is considered a fundamental right that provides fairness in criminal proceedings. The privilege against self-incrimination forms part of this right. Many historians attribute the right to silence, or the privilege against self-incrimination, to Saint John Chrysostom (d. 407). It is regarded as essential to human liberty and significant in the development of civil rights. As a legal principle, this right can be found in English common law as far back as the 17th century.
Today, the right to silence continues to be enforced by human rights treaties and constitutions across many international jurisdictions.
While Australia has no constitutional right to silence, Australian common law gives a person the right to refuse to answer any question that ‘may tend to bring him into the peril and possibility of being convicted as a criminal’ (Sorby v Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281). This common law right enforces the onus on prosecutors to prove criminal offences and prevents a person charged with an offence from having to assist prosecution. This was explained in Cornwell v R (2007) 231 CLR 260:
"… self-incrimination has been treated in the [legal system] as objectionable, not only because the methods used to extract it are commonly unacceptable but because the practice is ordinarily incompatible with the presumption
of innocence."
Not only must people be warned of their right to silence before police questioning, but they must also be seen to understand that warning.
Intoxication or high levels of violence during arrest can render a warning futile. In Robinett v Police (2000) 116 A Crim R 492, the court confirmed that ‘a confession not shown to be voluntarily and freely given with full knowledge of the rights not to give it, should not, in fairness, be admitted’ in trial.
‘Silence is golden’ according to the famous song by American rock band, the Four Seasons. The praise of silence can also be found in the book of Proverbs in the Bible, which states (at 10:19) ‘… he that refraineth his lips is wise.’
In law, silence is considered a fundamental right that provides fairness in criminal proceedings. The privilege against self-incrimination forms part of this right. Many historians attribute the right to silence, or the privilege against self-incrimination, to Saint John Chrysostom (d. 407). It is regarded as essential to human liberty and significant in the development of civil rights. As a legal principle, this right can be found in English common law as far back as the 17th century.
Today, the right to silence continues to be enforced by human rights treaties and constitutions across many international jurisdictions.
While Australia has no constitutional right to silence, Australian common law gives a person the right to refuse to answer any question that ‘may tend to bring him into the peril and possibility of being convicted as a criminal’ (Sorby v Commonwealth (1983) 152 CLR 281). This common law right enforces the onus on prosecutors to prove criminal offences and prevents a person charged with an offence from having to assist prosecution. This was explained in Cornwell v R (2007) 231 CLR 260:
"… self-incrimination has been treated in the [legal system] as objectionable, not only because the methods used to extract it are commonly unacceptable but because the practice is ordinarily incompatible with the presumption
of innocence."
Not only must people be warned of their right to silence before police questioning, but they must also be seen to understand that warning.
Intoxication or high levels of violence during arrest can render a warning futile. In Robinett v Police (2000) 116 A Crim R 492, the court confirmed that ‘a confession not shown to be voluntarily and freely given with full knowledge of the rights not to give it, should not, in fairness, be admitted’ in trial.
There are some exceptions to the right. For example, in all jurisdictions, police can require you to give personal details including name, address and date of birth if they suspect you of criminal offending, or if they believe you can assist with their investigations, or if you are the driver of a motor vehicle or can help to identify a particular driver or owner of a motor vehicle.
Furthermore, the right to silence does not prevent a person from having to provide evidence such as fingerprints, DNA samples or voice recordings (Sorby v Commonwealth). Controversially, commissions such as the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission may conduct coercive hearings in which there is no right to silence.
Crucial to the right to silence are the rules preventing jury members from drawing a conclusion of guilt because a person has exercised silence in police questioning or trial. This can be seen in legislation such as, for example, s.89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) that provides ‘in a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party … failed or refused (a) to answer one or more questions, or (b) to respond to representations.’ Section 18(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) states: ‘the failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecutor.’
New South Wales, however, weakened the protections of the right to silence in 2013 by introducing section 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Section 89A allows a jury to find that silence can be an indication of guilt in certain circumstances – that is, when an accused fails to mention a fact during a police interview which the accused then relies on for defence in trial. Further limitations on s.89A include that the accused (i) must be over 18 years of age, (ii) have a lawyer present and available during the relevant questioning, and (iii) be read an appropriate warning by police at the time of questioning.
Silence may indeed be golden. However, the introduction of s.89A shows that even the most fundamental common law rights may be diminished by Parliament. It is recommended that you obtain expert legal advice before participation in any police investigation.
There are some exceptions to the right. For example, in all jurisdictions, police can require you to give personal details including name, address and date of birth if they suspect you of criminal offending, or if they believe you can assist with their investigations, or if you are the driver of a motor vehicle or can help to identify a particular driver or owner of a motor vehicle.
Furthermore, the right to silence does not prevent a person from having to provide evidence such as fingerprints, DNA samples or voice recordings (Sorby v Commonwealth). Controversially, commissions such as the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission may conduct coercive hearings in which there is no right to silence.
Crucial to the right to silence are the rules preventing jury members from drawing a conclusion of guilt because a person has exercised silence in police questioning or trial. This can be seen in legislation such as, for example, s.89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) that provides ‘in a criminal proceeding, an inference unfavourable to a party must not be drawn from evidence that the party … failed or refused (a) to answer one or more questions, or (b) to respond to representations.’ Section 18(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA) states: ‘the failure of any person charged with an offence to give evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by the prosecutor.’
New South Wales, however, weakened the protections of the right to silence in 2013 by introducing section 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Section 89A allows a jury to find that silence can be an indication of guilt in certain circumstances – that is, when an accused fails to mention a fact during a police interview which the accused then relies on for defence in trial. Further limitations on s.89A include that the accused (i) must be over 18 years of age, (ii) have a lawyer present and available during the relevant questioning, and (iii) be read an appropriate warning by police at the time of questioning.
Silence may indeed be golden. However, the introduction of s.89A shows that even the most fundamental common law rights may be diminished by Parliament. It is recommended that you obtain expert legal advice before participation in any police investigation.
Parole is a process that gives some people the ability to get out of prison and serve the last part of their sentence in the community, under the supervision of Community Corrections (which used to be known as Probation and Parole).
What is the legal sentence period after which an inmate must reapply for the DSP?
I was reading a section of ‘Australia’s National Prison Newspaper’ where it gave some information about bail but I couldn’t find any information about people trying to vary intervention orders (I.V.O).
My name is Brian. A lot of guys here are talking about new legislation coming in the near future, but I haven’t found it anywhere. It is called “Daniel’s Law”. I was wondering if you could explain it and when it will take effect and who it will apply to?
This article discusses some of the human rights that may be relevant in prison with reference to human rights protections under the Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD) in Queensland.
I wonder if you could explain the new "No Body No Parole" law in New South Wales, where now people charged with murder or manslaughter need letters from the head of police?
The federal election is coming up. It happens about every three years. It’s for electing the government for the whole country – the federal government.
A parole order will include general and specific conditions. These include getting approval from the relevant authority for any travel interstate, or overseas.
Help keep the momentum going. All donations are tax deductible and will be vital in providing an essential resource for people in prison and their loved ones.
Help us get About Time off the ground. All donations are tax deductible and will be vital in providing an essential resource for people in prison and their loved ones.
Leave a Comment
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere. uis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.