Right to Silence in UK Law

I should be prepared to accent that the court which is competent to control the proceedings in the civil action, whether it be a Master, a Judge, or this Court, would have a discretion, under section 41 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, to stay the proceedings, if it appeared to the court that justice - the balancing of justice between the parties - so required, having regard to the concurrent criminal proceedings, and taking into account the principle, which applies in the criminal proceeding itself, of what is sometimes referred to as the "right of silence" and the reason why that right, under the law as it stands, is a right of a defendant in criminal proceedings.

In my view it would be wrong and undesirable to attempt to define in the abstract what are the relevant factors. By way of example, a relevant factor telling in favour of a defendant might well be the fact that the civil action or some step in it, would be likely to obtain such publicity as might sensibly be expected to reach, and to influence, parsons who would or might be jurors in criminal proceedings.

We consider that the specimen direction is in general terms a sound guide. It may be necessary to adapt or add to it in the particular circumstances of an individual case. But there are certain essentials which we would highlight.

However if the evidence was already in existence and the only effect of the use of the compulsory powers was to bring such evidence to the attention of the court, then its production could not be so objectionable. That is because the existence and quality of such evidence are independent of any order to produce it that is made against the will of the accused person. Therefore the production of such pre-existing and "independent" evidence could not render a trial unfair and so breach Article 6.