the so-called right of silence . . . is contrary to common sense. It runs counter to our realisation of how we ourselves would behave if we were faced with a criminal charge ( Williams 1987: 1107).
the very habit and faculty that makes apprehensible to us what is known and expected dulls our sensitivity to other forms, even the most obvious. We must rub our eyes and look again, clear our minds of what we are looking for to see what is there ( Malouf 1993: 130).
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 34,1 permits courts and juries in England and Wales to 'draw such inferences . . . as appear proper' from a suspect's failure to mention to a police officer investigating an offence a fact relied upon in his or her defence. In other words, it severely restricts the right to silence during police questioning. The caution is transformed from warning to threat,2 and its implications go beyond the specific legal provisions on which it is based. With some significant judicial support, senior police officers had campaigned for such a change in the rules of evidence for almost thirty years.3 One Metropolitan Police Commissioner claimed that____________________