Dead babies and the right to silence

Posted by: Deane F on 16 October 2006

New Zealand has recently seen a couple of high profile homocide investigations stymied by the familys' refusal to talk to the police.

The first case involved 3 month-old twin baby boys, Chris and Cru Kahui. They died on June 18 after five days on life support. The post mortem showed massive head injuries due to blunt force trauma, among other injuries. The extended family has pretty much closed ranks and are refusing to talk to police.

The second case involves a baby who appears to have been shaken to death. The family have not been talking to police but after the police went public about it the family have said they will be instructing their lawyers to make statements to police.

There has been much discussion about the right to silence and suggestions have been made that a court ought to be able to draw an inference from a suspect's or a witness's silence (and presumably that a judge ought to be able to direct a jury to do so in their deliberations).

I find it difficult to defend the right to silence and the principle that the burden of proof lies firmly upon the State (or the accusers in the case of a private prosecution) without minimising the death of the babies.

However, many freedoms and rights that we enjoy have evolved in response to tyrannical government. That these freedoms sometimes result in injustices or undesirable outcomes is seen as a necessary evil and a trade-off against worse things happening if these rights and liberties are diluted.

I personally think that the right to silence is absolute and ought to remain so. How can a mature democracy repond otherwise?
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Don Atkinson
Andy

Many thanks for your very helpful replies and your time compiling them.

Like many people I know, I am limited in a detailed inderstanding of how the legal system works and what the police can/can't do etc etc. Usually, a bit of careful thought and common sense about what is fair and reasonable gets near enough to the right answer, but not always.

Don't worry about me relying on your comments, in any "real" situation either now (I am not involved in any court/police issues) or in the future (I hope I never am!). I was only hoping to clarify a few issue for use in discussion on this forum. I suspected that UK rules could be different to NZ/Aus/USA/Canada rules and it helps to be aware of this when talking to others.

Many thanks

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 20 October 2006 by Deane F
I began this thread with mention of my difficulty in defending the right to silence without minimising the death of the babies that have lost their lives.

I still feel the same way. The situation is far from satisfactory. There are still no arrests and the post mortems show that there ought to be.

The situation is a classic divergent problem. No fair and right solution will be found by applying some extreme measure - but only by balancing the tension between competing needs.

Perhaps as much as anything else, the case illustrates the nature of most police work - which involves getting people to talk; first to the police; and then to the court.
Posted on: 21 October 2006 by andy c
Deane,
ironically the weakest legally viewed evidence, depending on particular cases, is witness ID, and evidence by way of confession.
Posted on: 21 October 2006 by Deane F
Hi Andy

I should have been more specific. What I meant was that a lot of crimes are solved by getting mates to rat on mates - either dobbing them in completely, or providing information on where to find "hard" evidence.

(Ironically too) the case I have just been involved in consisted of nothing but witness evidence - and 14 of the 15 charges in the indictment were proved.
Posted on: 21 October 2006 by andy c
quote:
the case I have just been involved in consisted of nothing but witness evidence - and 14 of the 15 charges in the indictment were proved.



Sweet!

andy c!
Posted on: 21 October 2006 by wellyspyder
These 2 situations you are refering to will only be solved in due time when the person(s) with information about the case(s) speak up. Be it the perpetrator(s) or someone else who knows what happen but will not/cannot speak up. As long as there is a "collective code of silence", the job of the police to find out what occured will be made very difficult if not near impossible.

Very sad, this no doubt will be the method from now on to be utilised by those who have done wrong in the eyes of the law.
Posted on: 28 October 2006 by Deane F
An arrest has been made in the case of the twin baby boys, Chris and Cru Kahui.

The father of the boys, 21 yr-old Chris Kahui appeared in Court on 27 October charged for murder. He is in custody until a bail hearing on 10 November.

His lawyer has said he will be defending the charges. The mother of the boys is appearing as a witness for the Crown according to her lawyer.
Posted on: 28 October 2006 by andy c
One for Fritz to no doubt take the piss on, but the vast majority of murders are usually family/domestic related... especially in the uk.