A Comparative Study of the Defendant's Right to Silence in Common Law and Civil Law Legal Systems with an Emphasis on Iranian Law مقاله

خلاصه ماشینی:

(Greer, 1990, 716) The formal shaping of the right to silence in England occurred in 1998 with the enactment of the Criminal Evidence Act. According to the "Criminal Justice and Public Order Act" 5 enacted in 1999, a defendant cannot be convicted solely based on an inference drawn from their silence; however, the defendant's silence can indicate guilt in four cases: first, when the defendant refrains from mentioning facts during interrogation or after being charged that they later intend to rely on in their defense. (Mahdavi, 1393, 128) Furthermore, the High Court of Ireland in the Hiney case against the Government of Ireland in 1994 declared: "The right to silence only covers matters that the police can present as evidence and, in other words, where answering them would constitute self-incrimination; but it does not include answering questions such as name, address, nationality, and the like, which generally cannot be evidence of the prosecution's focus on the speaker. cit, 12) In Canadian law, unlike the United States of America, there is no legal obligation for the police to announce or explain the right to silence to the defendant, and only in the case of juvenile defendants (individuals under 18 years old) is the police obligated to explain matters to them in accordance with the defendant's level of understanding. By bringing this case to the Supreme Court of America, the Court announced that because the right to silence, the non-obligation to answer questions, and the right to enjoy assistance of counsel to the defendant has not been announced, his confession and other statements to the police cannot be used as evidence against him.