Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst leidis oma koha põhjusel, et vaikimise tähendus on sageli alahinnatud nii igapäevaelus, organisatsioonides kui riigi-elanike suhetes nt süüteomenetluses politseitoimingute ajal. Niisiis vaikimine. Tekst võiks huvi pakkuda siiski suurele hulgale lugejatele, kel huvi mõista vaikimisega seonduvat. (vt ka Albert O. Hirschman’i raamatut Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States)

Kontekstiks:

In Ireland a set of legislative provisions allows for inferences to be drawn in a number of specific circumstances, as fully outlined later. Indeed, the original Irish inference provisions (which have since been extended and amended) pre-dated the introduction of similar provisions in Northern Ireland by four years and in England and Wales by ten years.

Autorid täpsustavad fookust:

In this article we consider three significant aspects of the practical operation of inference provisions at the point of police detention and questioning in Ireland.

Metoodikast:

A multi-method, qualitative research design was used to explore legal professionals’ experiences and perceptions of the right to silence at the pre-trial investigative stage. This involved carrying out two focus groups with a total of 19 criminal defence solicitors and one-on-one, semi-structured interviews with 10 barristers, 11 staff from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, 4 judges and 6 retired gardaí.

Vaikimisest:

The right to silence has been recognised as a constitutional right in Ireland though it is not an absolute right. 12 The same can be said of the protection for the right, often interchangeably referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination, under the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Erinevad praktikad:

As just noted, current Garda practice involves an initial number of interviews with a detained suspect where no warning about the possible drawing of inferences from silence at trial is administered, and then, potentially, one or more interviews in which the relevant legislation is specifically invoked towards the end of a detention period. This contrasts with the position in England and Wales […] In those jurisdictions, the caution accounts for the fact that it might harm the suspect’s defence if they do not mention something at the point of police questioning which they later seek to rely on at trial, and therefore the general inference provision is in play, so to speak, throughout each police interview.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

While the lack of an updated caution in Ireland may initially have been viewed as a negative aspect of the operation of the inference provisions, in fact this led to the organic development of a process whereby separate, stand-alone inference interviews are conducted toward the end of a detention period. In our view this is significantly preferable, from the perspective of fairness, to the situation whereby inferences can be drawn from any and all suspect interviews. […] Convictions in criminal trials ought not to be lightly reached, and we must ensure that the operation of inference provisions is fair and appropriate in individual cases.

Daly, Y., Dowd, C., & Muirhead, A. (2022). When you say nothing at all: Invoking inferences from suspect silence in the police stationThe International Journal of Evidence & Proof26(3), 249-270.