Hey i was wondering what bodies would have pushed for the reforms of the right to silence laws? All the media articles seem to be criticising the laws so i don't think it was necessarily them. Thanks!
Hey !
So i'm going to admit something. I answered this question about 10 minutes ago, but kind of got sidetracked. When I finally posted my response I realised that it actually doesn't answer your question, so I deleted it and typed up a new one. However, I feel like what I said before could still be handy, so I've copy pasted it below the ACTUAL answer - enjoy
Like you said, most NGOs and the media aren't in favour of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013. Essentially, it means that the accused's defence may be hampered if they do not disclose a vital piece of information during questioning, which they later rely on in trial. Very few bodies actually support the amendment, so I would conclude that it was mostly the government itself that pushed for these laws.
Police Minister Mike Gallacher stated: "The right to silence can be exploited by criminals and failing to answer police can impede investigations ... they won't be able to hide behind their vow of silence any more."
Now, time for my previous answer, which I deleted earlier but may still be usefulHey, i'm not too familiar with this human right, since I study human trafficking and slavery as my contemporary issue. That being said, I've heard of this while learning about the criminal investigation process - rights of suspects, so I hope I can lend a hand here !
Essentially, there aren't many NGOs that are pushing for this amendment. If I were to guess, I would assume that the NSW Law Reform Commission would have some involvement with it. Out of curiosity, I did a bit of research and found a report by the Australasian Legal Information Institute, which was in response to the
Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013. Here's a little extract of the report which I believe sums it up nicely:
The Evidence Amendment Act cannot be considered a genuine attempt at law reform in the sense of making changes to improve the law. Rather, it is arguable that the reform is an example of ill-conceived and populist legislation by a NSW government attempting to appear ‘tough’ on crime in response to recent media coverage of the activities of organised crime gangs operating in Sydney. In case you were wondering, the points that AUSLII brings up are that:
1. The amendment is trying to solve issues that don't exist in the first place
2. The amendment undermines the presumption of innocence
3. It is far too complex and impractical in the legal system
So I would say that there aren't bodies which support the act. If anything, they mainly condemn it. Hope that helps