In regards to the BC'S rights to remain silent (or anyone for that matter) i just found some information about it.
The right to remain silent
In most circumstances you must give the police your name and address, but other than that you have the right to remain silent. You can refuse to answer questions asked by police whether you have been stopped in the street, you have been taken to the station for questioning or you have been arrested. You should refuse to answer any questions or sign any statements until you have spoken to a lawyer.
Police interviews and questioning
If police ask you to go to the police station to answer questions, you don't have to go unless you are arrested.
Police must tell you that you don't need to answer their questions. Always get legal advice before taking part in a police interview or giving a formal statement.
If you are under 17 and questioned by police, you must have a 'support person' with you (unless you are being questioned about a minor offence such as obscene language or possession of property suspected of being stolen).
The support person should be a parent or guardian, a solicitor or a person who is acting for you who works in an agency that deals with the law. If none of these is available, get a relative or friend you would like to have there. If this person is not available then get a justice of the peace.
You should tell the police which person you would like to have with you.
If you make a statement to the police, you have a right to get a copy of it. You also have a right to get a copy of any taped record of the interview.
http://www.lawstuff.org.au/qld_law/topics/police/article7
In addition to that:
The distinction between pre-trial silence & silence at trial
A distinction has arisen between the treatment of an accuseds silence prior to trial and an accuseds refusal to give evidence at trial. Recent High Court cases, such as Glennon v R,[34] affirm the right to pre-trial silence but doubts have existed over whether the right to silence prevents the drawing of unfavourable inferences from a persons silence at trial. In Petty & Maiden v R[35] the High Court rejected the suggestion that, while the court could not infer consciousness of guilt from silence, it could deny credibility to a late defence or explanation because of earlier silence. The court held the latter as well as the former to be impermissible, as a fundamental incident of a suspects right to pre-trial silence is that no adverse inference can be drawn from exercising that right.[36] Mason CJ, Deane, Toohey & McHugh JJ cautioned that:
the denial of the credibility of that late defence or explanation by reason of the accuseds earlier silence is just another way of drawing an adverse inference (albeit less strong than an inference of guilt) against the accused by reason of his or her exercise of the right of silence. Such an erosion of the fundamental right should not be permitted. Indeed, in a case where the positive matter of explanation or defence constitutes the real issue of the trial, to direct the jury that it was open to them to draw an adverse inference about its genuineness from the fact that the accused had not previously raised it would be to convert the right to remain silent into a source of entrapment.[37]
Later in Weissensteiner v R,[38] the High Court took a more pragmatic approach to silence at trial. It found that, where the prosecution had proved its case to a certain standard, the judge may direct the jury that if facts they find proved can support an inference of guilt and there are things which it would be reasonable to expect the accused would know, and would disclose if they were consistent with his or her innocence, the jury may take such silence into account, in deciding whether to draw the inference.[39]
It is only when the failure of the accused to give evidence is a circumstance which may bear upon the probative value of the evidence which has been given and which the jury is required to consider, that they may take it into account, and they may take it into account only for the purpose of evaluating that evidence.[40]
Unfavourable inferences could now be drawn from an accuseds silence at trial. This approach was defended by Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ who stated:
But it is not to deny the right [to maintain silence]; it is merely to recognise that the jury cannot, and cannot be required to, shut their eyes to the consequences of exercising the right.[41]
For Palmer, there is a clear rationale for the courts distinction between pre-trial and at-trial silence:
[T]he right to pre-trial silence is based on notions of what constitutes fairness in the States methods of investigating and proving an alleged offence.[42]
The same rationale does not apply to the right not to testify, since here the accused is not asked to testify against himself (sic), but in favour of himself (sic).[43]
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2001/3.html
