The " Right " to silence !

One of the basic tenets of civil law is the right of the accused to maintain silence when questioned.   It is the duty of those prosecuting to prove guilt rather than the accused to prove innocence, and this right of silence gives protection from " self incrimination  ".

There have been recent moves in political circles to remove this " right " and demand that the accused answer questions or later have evidence claimed but not given at that initial interview disregarded.

It seems that there is a wide disparity between " civil " law and " military " law when it comes to evidence - and the right to silence.   Under military law a person is required to truthfully answer if questioned by a superior officer - and it seems that the police come under this tenet of military law.   Uniformed police are ranked in a military manner and custom dictates that a salute is required from junior officers passing a commissioned officer of higher rank.

Justice Christine Anderson ruled in the Supreme court that police must be given that same right of silence as a matter of justice.    The Police Association has welcomed this law change - which closes the risk of involuntary self incrimination.

This certainly opens the aspect of military law to a wider interpretation.   We have just seen several enquiries concerning the Australian Defence Academy in Canberra and this law change raises the question of whether these military investigations involved the right to silence.

Criminal charges are to be laid in one instance and self incrimination may become an issue in the defence, now that this Supreme court ruling extends the right to silence more widely.

It certainly brings into focus that old adage that " nothing is certain when it relates to the law " !