Silence and the privilege against self-incrimination

John D. Jackson; Sarah J. Summers

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139093606.012

8 - Silence and the privilege against self-incrimination

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

John D. Jackson and

Sarah J. Summers

Show author details

John D. Jackson: Affiliation:
University College Dublin
Sarah J. Summers: Affiliation:
Universität Zürich

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The historical and transnational importance of the right of silence

In Chapter 4 we noted that one of the strands developed by the European Court of Human Rights in its vision of defence participation is the right to choose not to participate in the proof process. In this chapter, we explore this principle which the court has referred to as ‘the right to remain silent and not to contribute to incriminating oneself’. The principle is commonly believed to have its origins in the common law and is generally traced back to 1641 when the Star Chamber and the High Commission were abolished in England along with the ex officio oath procedure under which accused persons were required to take an oath to answer all questions. The precise origins of the privilege remains obscure, with some tracing it back to ancient Christian writings and to Talmudic law. The maxim ‘nemo teneter prodere se ipsum’, which served as a guarantee that no one would be required to become the source of their own prosecution, has been traced back to medieval canon law and the European ius commune.

The growing consensus that the privilege has a broader and older ancestry than the English common law may explain why it has gained acceptance not only in the English speaking world, but around the globe, as well as in various human rights instruments. Although the privilege was not part of the charters that established the Nuremberg or the Tokyo tribunals, it is expressly recognised, as we shall see, in the ICCPR and the ACHR. It has been estimated that no less than forty-eight national constitutions provide for a privilege against self-incrimination, although over half of these instruments expressly limit it to testimony at trial, many in former British colonies with common law roots. Although the right is not expressly mentioned in the ECHR, the ECtHR has described the privilege and the right of silence as ‘generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair trial procedure’.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence
Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions
, pp. 241 - 284

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139093606.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Wigmore, J. H.A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common LawBostonLittle, Brown 1940 8 2250Google Scholar

Levy, P.The Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right against Self-IncriminationOxford University Press 1968Google Scholar

Helmolz, R. H.Helmolz, R. H.Gray, C. M.Langbein, J. H.Moglen, E.Smith, H. E.Alschuler, A. W.The Privilege against Self-Incrimination: Its Origins and DevelopmentUniversity of Chicago Press 1997 17Google Scholar

Schlauri, R.Das Verbot des Selbstbelastungszwangs im Strafverfahren: Konkretisierung eines Grundrechts durch RechtsvergleichungZurichSchulthess 2003 39Google Scholar

Sedley, S.Wringing out the Fault: Self-Incrimination in the 21st Century 2002 52 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly117Google Scholar

Bassiouni, M. C.Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections in National Constitutions’ 1992 3 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law235Google Scholar

Bentham, J.A Treatise on Judicial EvidenceDumont, E.LondonBaldwin, Craddock and Joy 1825 241Google Scholar

Bentham, J.Rationale of Judicial EvidenceMill, J. S.LondonHunt and Clarke 1827 5 250Google Scholar

Williams, G.The Proof of GuiltLondonStevens 1963Google Scholar

Langbein, J. H.The Origins of the Adversary Criminal TrialOxford University Press 2003Google Scholar

Summers, S. J.Fair Trials: The European Criminal Procedural Tradition and the European Court of Human RightsOxfordHart 2007 77Google Scholar

Berger, M.Reforming Confessions Law British Style: A Decade of Experience in England and Wales 2000 2 Columbia Human Rights Law Review248Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D.Silence and Proof: Extending the Boundaries of Criminal Proceedings in the UK 2001 5 International Journal of Evidence & Proof145CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Kessel, G.European Perspectives on the Accused as a Source of Testimonial Evidence 1998 100 West Virginia Law Review800Google Scholar

Stuntz, W.The American Exclusionary Rule and Defendants’ Changing Rights’ 1989 Criminal Law Review 117Google Scholar

Roberts, P.Zuckerman, A.Criminal EvidenceOxford University Press 2010 546Google Scholar

2000

Seidmann, D. J.Stein, A.The Right to Silence Helps the Innocent: A Game Theoretic Analysis of the Fifth Amendment Privilege 2000 114 Harvard Law Review431CrossRef Google Scholar

Mirfield, P.Miranda Rule Re-affirmed: US v Dickerson 2001 6 International Journal of Evidence & Proof61CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Kessel, G.The Suspect as a Source of Testimonial Evidence, A Comparison of the English and American Approaches 1986 38 Hastings Law Journal1Google Scholar

Easton, S.The Case for the Right of SilenceVermontAshgate 1998Google Scholar

Damaška, M. R.Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: Comparative Study 1973 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review511CrossRef Google Scholar

Bosly, H. D.Vandermeersch, D.Droit de la Procédure PénaleBrugesLa Charte 2005Google Scholar

Hodgson, J.French Criminal JusticeOxfordHart 2005 120Google Scholar

Fermon, J.Verbruggen, F.de Decker, S.The Investigative Stage of the Criminal Process in BelgiumCape, E.Hodgson, J.Prakken, T.Spronken, T.Suspects in EuropeAntwerpIntersentia 2007 29Google Scholar

Trechsel, S.Human Rights in Criminal ProceedingsOxford University Press 2005 340Google Scholar

1997

1970

O’Boyle, M.Freedom from Self-Incrimination and the Right of Silence: A Pandora's Box?Mahoney, P.Matscher, F.Petzold, H.Wildhaber, L.Protecting Human Rights: The European Perspective: Studies in memory of Rolv RyssdalCologneCarl Heymanns Verlag KG 2000 1021Google Scholar

1976

1966

Allen, R. J.Mace, M. K.The Self-Incrimination Clause Explained and its Future Predicted 2004 94 Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology243CrossRef Google Scholar

Dennis, I. H.Instrumental Protection, Human Right or Functional Necessity: Reassessing the Privilege against Self-Incrimination 1995 54 Cambridge Law Journal342CrossRef Google Scholar

Paciocco, D. M.Stuesser, L.The Law of EvidenceTorontoIrwin Law 2005Google Scholar

Emmerson, B.Ashworth, A.MacDonald, A.Human Rights and Criminal JusticeLondonSweet & Maxwell 2007 620Google Scholar

Redmayne, M.Rethinking the Privilege against Self-Incrimination 2007 27 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies209CrossRef Google Scholar

1992

McGrath, D.EvidenceDublinThomson Round Hall 2005 634Google Scholar

Summers, S.Das Recht sich nicht selbst belasten zu müssen, Verkehrsdelikte und der Fall O’Halloran und Francis gegen Vereinigtes KönigreichSchaffhauser, R.Jahrbuch zum StrassenverkehrsrechtSt GallenSchriftenreihe des IRP-HSG 2009 639Google Scholar

Redmayne, M.English Warnings 2008 30 Cardozo Law Review1047Google Scholar

Jackson, J.Interpreting the Silence Provisions: The Northern Ireland Cases 1995 Criminal Law Review 587Google Scholar

Pattenden, R.Inferences from Silence 1995 Criminal Law Review 602Google Scholar

1966

1965

1981

1977

Lieberman, J. D.Arndt, J.Vess, M.Inadmissible Evidence and Pretrial Publicity: The Effects (and Ineffectiveness) of Admonitions to DisregardLieberman, J. D.Krauss, D. A.Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial ProcessesFarnhamAshgate 2009 67Google Scholar

2002

Jackson, J. D.Re-Conceptualising the Right of Silence as an Effective Fair Trial Standard 2009 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly835CrossRef Google Scholar

1964

Allen, R. J.The Simpson Affair, Reform of the Criminal Justice Process and Magic Bullets 1996 67 University of Colorado Law Review989Google Scholar

Greenawalt, R. K.Silence as a Moral and Constitutional Right 1981 William and Mary Law Review 15 39Google Scholar

1995

Arenella, P. and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination: A Reappraisal 1982 20 American Criminal Law Review31Google Scholar

Galligan, D. J.The Right to Silence Reconsidered 1988 Current Legal Problems69CrossRef Google Scholar

Twining, W.The Way of the Baffled Medic 1973 12 Journal of Society of Public Teachers of Law (NS)348Google Scholar

Jackson, J.Wolfe, M.Quinn, K.Legislating against Silence: The Northern Ireland ExperienceBelfastNorthern Ireland Office 2000Google Scholar

Dixon, D.Politics, Research and Symbolism in Criminal Justice: The Right of Silence and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 1991 20 Anglo-American Law Review27CrossRef Google Scholar

Greer, S.The Right to Silence: A Review of the Current Debate 1990 53 Modern Law Review58CrossRef Google Scholar

Alexy, R.The Structure of Constitutional Rights NormsA Theory of Constitutional RightsOxford University Press 2002Google Scholar

Ashworth, A.Human Rights, Serious Crime and Criminal ProcedureLondonSweet & Maxwell 2002 65Google Scholar

Thaman, S.Plea-Bargaining, Negotiated Confessions and Consensual Resolution of Criminal CasesBoele-Woelki, K.van Erp, S.General Reports of the XVII Congress of the International Academy of Comparative LawUtrechtEleven International 2007Google Scholar

Schabas, W.The UN International Criminal TribunalsCambridge University Press 2006 532CrossRef Google Scholar

Ashworth, A.Redmayne, M.The Criminal ProcessOxford University Press 2010CrossRef Google Scholar

Schwikkard, P. J.The Muddle of Silence 2009 6 International Commentary on EvidenceCrossRef Google Scholar

Jackson, J.The Right of Silence: Judicial Responses to Parliamentary Encroachment 1993 57 Modern Law Review270CrossRef Google Scholar

A. RobertsPre-Trial Defence Rights and the Fair Use of Eyewitness Identification Procedures 2008 71 Modern Law ReviewGoogle Scholar

Jones, J. R. W. D.Powles, S.International Criminal PracticeOxford University Press 2003 502Google Scholar

May, R.Wierda, M.International Criminal EvidenceArdsleyTransnational Publishers 2002 277Google Scholar

Jackson, J.The Reasonable Time Requirement: An Independent and Meaningful Right? 2005 Criminal Law Review 3 19Google Scholar

Toney, R. J.Disclosure of Evidence and Legal Assistance at Custodial Interrogation: What Does the European Convention on Human Rights Require? 2001 5 International Journal of Evidence & Proof39CrossRef Google Scholar

Leverick, F.The Right to Legal Advice During Detention 2010 14 Edinburgh Law Review300Google Scholar