I would like to know why Kellie Tranter thinks that an accused person has a "fundamental right" to keep his/her mouth shut while the defence solicitor lies his/her head off, defaming, degrading, and making claims against victims that outside of the court would attract charges of "Criminal Defamation".
The accused has a "fundamental obligation" to tell the truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING but the truth.
The proposed changes are only the thin edge of the wedge but at least it is part of the way in, and I can assure Kellie Tranter that those of us who have had a gut full of the corrupt Legal Aid system will be driving the wedge all the way in.

What a sensationalist article by Ms Tranter. The right to silence is not being removed; what is changing is the probative value of that right with prosecuting processes being able to infer, by raising in court, the circumstances of that decision to remain silent, especially when a last minute 'alibi' is presented to the court when no such alibi was raised in the first instance.

The Defence will have the right to challenge those prosecutional inferences as usual.

The article is an inadequate presentation of the issue.

I agree with the views of both the previous contributors. I'm sure Ms Tranter has her heart in the right place, but if the justice system were left to her and her cohorts, our streets would be awash with all manner of ne'er do wells.

Until one has worn a blue uniform you have no conception how difficult it is under the current practice, to present a good brief of evidence, one that will both stand-up to close judicial scrutiny and be sufficiently persuasive in court.

The proposed removal of the right to remain silent, I believe to be a step in the right direction. If an individual believes they have no case to answer, would it not be in his or her interest, to willingly and fully collaborate with police, in order that they may quickly clear up any discrepancies or inconsistencies, in the matter under investigation. Thus permitting investigators to direct their enquiries in other direction(s) ?

Unfortunately for Ms. Tranter and criminal lawyers (a fairly large group, competing with bankrupt lawyers), there is no doubt of public support for the changes proposed by Mr. O'Farrell. For the record he states this proposal as:

''We are going to amend the law to allow juries and judges to take an adverse inference from an accused person who refuses to divulge facts to police but then later produces so-called evidence in order to provide an excuse.'' SMH 15/08/12

No lawyer I have ever spoken with has been able to produce a justification of the right not to have adverse inference made in these circumstances, nor indeed does Ms. Tranter. This is hardly surprising. The claim that such change will lead to miscarriages of justice really needs some factual backing - on the surface the reverse would seem the logical outcome.

This is a scam by the police. The only time it could really be justified is when a criminal arranges an alibi at a date after their arrest. They could not tell the investigating officers at the time since they didnt yet know what their alibi was.

The police have not used this argument as far as I know.

The real reason that I can see is that it will pressure people to talk to the police and feel as if they MUST answer their questions.

This is very wrong. People DO have a right to silence. The police have a job to do and it is not your responsibility to help them in that job. Do you help the checkout chick scan your groceries or the fireman put out your kitchen fire? Why would you want to help the police, who in this context, want to harm you and take away your freedom?

Unless of course you are guilty in which case you should admit everything and take your punishment.

Mikk:

< Unless of course you are guilty in which case you should admit everything and take your punishment >.

...Yes Mikk, but the Police also have no right to “verbal” the accused, remember? The public have been dragged down this rocky path of Police corruption and Public injustice. I am very surprised little comment has been directed to the “back-door” resurrection of “Verballing”!

...I agree with your post until it falls short on the last sentence. It only remains the obligation of the accused to stand before the Court and answer the charges before himself truthfully, and not to admit to anything that may stray outside of that context of the charges; (keeping in mind also, the original Police charges may change on numerous occasions before the day in Court), and the place to do this is in a court room, and in front of a Judge in the last instance: Not in a police cell or Police interview room in the first instance!