Lawyers say National's promise to remove the right to silence during child murder investigations is "dangerous" and "flies in the face of justice".
By Felix Walton of RNZ
Yesterday, justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith announced a National government would make it a Crimes Act offence for someone at the scene of a child's death not to give information to police.
Retired law professor Bill Hodge said the policy appeared to target suspects' relatives, rather than the perpetrators themselves.
"It may be aimed not so much necessarily at the primary perpetrator, but the relatives, the family members and so on, who engage in what National might call a 'conspiracy of silence'," he said.
"I'm sure the police have been frustrated, not so much by the person they see as the primary suspect, but by everyone else who was present in the house."
He said it would give police more sway during interrogations, but worried it tipped the scales too far.
"It would certainly add strength to the police arm in saying to those persons 'you must talk to us or we will charge you with this new offence'," he said.
"I think it changes the dynamic of an investigation in a way which I would say is dangerous. The investigator could now be seen to have the upper hand, given that powerful threat which they have behind them."
Professor Hodge said it also put more weight behind an interrogator's bluff.
"Investigations sometimes involve a bit of a bluff and it's quite well known that sometimes an investigator will imply somebody else, 'your so-called friend is speaking, and you may end up in trouble yourself if you don't speak yourself'," he said.
Defence lawyer Marie Dyhrberg KC said it flipped the burden of proof on its head.
"It's a reverse onus, it's a presumption of guilt whereby somebody who just happened to be at the location, they're presumed to be withholding evidence," she said.
"It just flies in the face of justice."
She said the right to remain silent was fundamental to a fair justice system.
"The state has all the resources and all the ability to make an allegation and prosecute someone, and the ordinary citizen doesn't have the resources to fight back," she said.
"Even if they did, it doesn't matter. You make the allegation and you have to prove it.
"You've got to recognise that sometimes proving innocence is virtually impossible. [The right to silence] is protection against wrongful conviction."
Bill Hodge said it was understandable that police and members of the public would feel frustrated by cases in which potential key witnesses had refused to cooperate with police.
"There have been situations that it upsets our conscience to have other housemates and other people in the extended family refuse to assist, and that is disturbing," he said.
"On the other hand, the right to silence is such a fundamental right. I'm just concerned about abuse by investigators. Having been an investigator myself, I'm concerned about the way they would go about an interrogation."
Despite his concerns, Hodge didn't feel as strongly as Dyhrberg.
"Put it this way, I don't think it would make me complain to the Human Rights Commission, but it's certainly something because it changes the dynamics of police and their interaction with families," he said.
"I think it's one of the more interesting campaign issues that's come up in an otherwise pretty dreary campaign."
SHARE ME