'The whole legal aid and sentencing system needs a radical shake up' - Your Letters plus at the bar with Terry and Nobby in a 1969 picture from the archives

Remaining silent needs redress

The right to remain silent in police interrogations is considered a fundamental principle to a fair trial.

However the recent murder at Bescot station where the accused remained silent in police interview raises questions on whether there should be a law change and consequential penalties brought in on that specific issue in the event of a guilty verdict.

If the solicitor advises their client to play the no comment card throughout the interview they are both jointly responsible for a policy of non cooperation and blanking the police in their duty to investigate a murder. Therefore both parties concerned should be brought to task at the end of the trial.

So let them keep their fair trial and remain silent in non self-incriminating police interviews, but on their heads be it in the event of a murder guilty verdict.

May I suggest an extra three years jail on top of the judges life in prison minimum term recommendations for blanking the police in their line of enquiries for the accused.

The defence legal eagles who go whistling all the way to the bank for representing the accused should have 10 per cent retention on legal aid fees imposed as a state redress for the cost of wasting police interview time.

To talk or not to talk that is the question to govern police interviews. An opening statement of the latter's penalties would concentrate the minds a little of the accused and their brief's in regards of their collective choice to remain silent.

In the event of a not guilty verdict on the accused we would have to accept the jury's decision. However it's reasonable to ask the question do jury's have the complete story of events with the right to remain silent being activated?

Not convinced it would work? Seems a little harsh? The legal profession would be up in arms?

What alternatives are there?