JJ it is definitely not the case in UK.
ENGLAND LIMITS THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND MOVES TOWARDS AN
INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM OF JUSTICE
Britain's Parliament has adopted Prime Minister John Major's proposal to significantly curtail the right to silence.1 The new law will allow judges and juries to consider as evidence of guilt both a suspect's failure to answer police questions during interrogation and a defendant's refusal to testify during trial.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6816&context=jclc
This has been the case in the UK since the mid 1990s.
Thank you IB, that was really interesting. Inter alia, this is what I learned:
In 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
modified the right to silence for any person under police questioning in England and Wales. Immediately previous to the Act, the caution issued by the police varied from force to force, but was along the lines of:
"You do not have to say anything but anything you do say will be taken down and may be given in evidence.
The 1994 Act modified this to be:
"You do not have to say anything.
But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
"This is similar to the right to silence clause in the Miranda Warning in the US".
I've spent 2 days trying to reply but I can't keep it brief, and the following is short as I can make it.
"At common law,
adverse inferences could be drawn from silence only in limited circumstances in which an accusation of guilt was made.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where
before or on being charged, the accused:
fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence.
There may be no conviction based wholly on silence.
The section is primarily directed at circumstances where a defendant refuses to reveal his defence until trial, ambushing the prosecution. An adverse inference is appropriate where the jury conclude that the reason the accused remained silent was that he had no proper answer to the charge put against him. The inferences that may be drawn include some additional support for the prosecution case, i.e. that the defendant is guilty.
The European Court of Human Rights has held that the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6".
If you read the entire article it's quite apparent that it's brought virtually no change at all regarding convictions and nearly every page has negative comments regarding this amendment.
Finally, I've just discovered that last year Australia amended it's Evidence Act in a very similar manner. The legal fraternity were opposed to it because it erodes a person's presumption of innocence.
Section 89A(1) provides:
This provision only applies to "criminal proceedings for a serious indictable offence", relevantly any offence punishable by imprisonment for at least five years.
The new provision
permits an unfavourable inference to be drawn during proceedings for a serious indictable offence in circumstances where a defendant failed to mention during an interview with investigating officials something the defendant relies upon in the proceedings, and of which he/she would have been aware during the investigative phase. This inference cannot be drawn, however, if it is the only evidence of the defendant's guilt.
JMO
