Right to Silence Sensationally Misleading

The NZ Herald has a story suggesting former PM, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, has called for the right to silence for persons facing charges be reviewed.

In reading the article, the article does not make it clear what the circumstances were when Palmer made his remarks. Did they call him for an opinion? Did he issue a press release?

Palmer's remarks are equivocal. He has no problem with a public discussion of the right to remain silent and says that there are arguments on both sides. It sounds like the answer you give when you're not staking out a position either way. Sure! Let's talk about it, bearing in mind any change would take a long time and be fraught with problems and complexities.

On the face of it, the headline "Ex-PM: Let's look at the right to silence" is misleading. Palmer appears to be responding to such suggestions rather than initiating them.

Later in the article, we see an unattributed statement:

New Zealand's human rights-centred law had created many rights which did not exist less than a century ago.

This comment, wherever it came from, is an attempt to portray the right to remain silent as not legitimate by implication. The reasons aren't given, but the meaning is clear enough. Why it is included in the article isn't clear as the right to remain silent is not one of the rights the sentence refers to. It's been around a long time.

As the article later points out, anyone other than the accused can now be compelled to testify at trial.

Putting this sensational piece of overblown nonsense aside, what about the issue at its core?

How would a law "forcing" people to speak actually work? Who exactly are we talking about? The "right to silence" pertains to the accused. Beyond identifying themselves, the police cannot force any citizen to talk if they don't want to. What can be done if they refuse to speak? Torture them? Coerce them somehow?

If the police turn up on your doorstep asking what your brother, sister or neighbours have been up to, could they, under some new law, cart you off and charge you with something for saying: "I don't know" if they aren't happy with your answer?

In the Kahui case, if there was clear physical evidence and / or credible testimony as to who did the crime, then whether Chris Kahui says anything or not doesn't matter. If that evidence doesn't exist, how on earth could you compel Kahui to tell the truth, given you lack the evidence to know whether he is or isn't?

Chris Kahui was also the only accused. The right to remain silent applied only to him and no one else. How would forcing him to say anything have changed anything? How would you force anyone else to say anything? The police already have the power to interrogate people in an investigation. They chose not to use it.

I can imagine a trial where Kahui was "forced" to give evidence:

Prosecutor
Q: "Mr. Kahui, did you kill your twin boys?"

C.Kahui
A: "NO! I don't know who did it, but it wasn't me."

Prosecutor
Q: "Ms. King, did you kill your twin boys?"

M.King
A: "No! Chris didn't do it! I don't know who did."

What more could any change in the law compel them to say?

Maybe you would charge everyone in the house at the time with murder and treat them as a group. Would that loosen lips for the better? Or would it simply allow the best and most convincing liar(s) to shaft some innocent person?

Without credible evidence to prove who did what, the outcome of this case would be no different. You can't convict someone of murder if you can't prove they did it. You can't require them to confess if they didn't do it (or if they did) and you have no proof otherwise.