Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

7.0.8 The Review looked at the admissibility of certain statements at trial in Chapter6.4 - Exculpatory and Mixed Statements. It is apparent, from looking at thedetail of the current law, that the definitions of incriminatory, exculpatory andmixed statements are unclear and the directions required to be given to a juryare unnecessarily complex and confusing. Recent cases have shown that theinterpretations of what is meant by these statements have been inconsistentand have led to convictions being quashed at appeal. In order to achieveclarity and consistency across the system, the Review recommends that allstatements, taken fairly from a suspect by the police in the course of aninvestigation, should be admissible as proof of fact.7.0.9 The Convention does not expressly provide a right to silence, but such a righthas been implied by the European Court as lying “at the heart of the notion ofa fair procedure under Article 6” 1 . In Chapter 6.5 – Adverse Inference fromSilence, the Review looks at the current law of not only Scotland but alsothose countries that have adopted the concept of drawing an adverse inferencefrom silence. The introduction of an adverse inference may not risk infringingthe Article 6 right, but it would require the drafting of a bewildering andcomplex web of restrictive legal rules. In trying to create a system that isconsistent, valuable and robust enough to stand up to future changes in humanrights law, and to avoid legal complexity, the Review recommends that thereshould continue to be no adverse inference drawn if a suspect declines to givea positive account to the police in response to an allegation of criminalconduct.1 Adetoro v United Kingdom, 20 April 2010 (no 46834/06)238