submit a 1250 words paper on the topic Law of Evidence: The Right to Silence.

Hi, need to submit a 1250 words paper on the topic Law of Evidence: The Right to Silence. The House of Lords in R v Webber of 2004 that pursuant to Section 34 facts may include any fact that is an issue at the trial and tendered by the defendant in his or her defence. Moreover, facts will include any explanation or fact that the defendant would have logically raised at an earlier stage of the criminal proceedings. According to the ruling in R v Ali, the only recourse a defendant may have is to either deny culpability at the police station or to prepare a statement setting out his or her defence so as to preserve the right to raise the defence at trial. The right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR demands, however, that prosecutors bear the burden of proof. It was ruled in R v Condron that directions to the jury must be given with caution emphasizing the right to silence. The Judicial Studies Board established 6 points intended to ensure that adverse inferences contained in section 34 do not contradict Article 6. The 6 points correspond with the 6 requirements for adverse inferences as laid doing in R v Argent and are: There must be proceedings. Failure to mention a fact must predate the charge or when being charged. The omission must have occurred while being questioned under caution. The questions must have related to determining who committed the offence. The omitted fact must be one subsequently used in defence at the trial. The omitted fact must be one that accused was logically expected to mention. The courts have tried to set limits to what amounts like a new fact and to preserve the defendant’s right to remain silent. For example in R v McGarry, the defendant was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. In a written statement taken by the police, the defendant claimed that he acted in self-defence and did not answer police questions. At his trial, the defendant testified to facts substantiating and building on his claim of self-defence. The trial judge said that he was not inviting the jury to draw an adverse inference since D had not raised a new fact but did state that it was up to the jury to determine whether or not they wished to draw an adverse inference.&nbsp.