Assessing Pre-Trial Silence: The Logic, Construction and Utility of Section 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Complexity arises when prosecutors invite an adverse inference from a defendant’s pre-trial silence under section 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Despite controversy surrounding this provision’s enactment, there has been limited scholarship analysing its underlying logic and application in practice. This article explains how a defendant’s pre-trial silence can logically support the prosecution case, albeit in limited ways. With reference to English cases concerning similar legislation, it then critiques the New South Wales courts’ approach to section 89A. This analysis reveals issues with their consideration of legal advice to remain silent, which diverges from the English approach, and the scope of ‘official questioning’ that may enliven the provision. In all, section 89A inferences involve intricate reasoning and have limited probative value, calling into question whether this curtailment of the right to silence is worthwhile.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
University of New South Wales Law Journal
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.53637/ynlj8685
Primary Topic
Criminal Law and Evidence
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing Pre-Trial Silence: The Logic, Construction and Utility of Section 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Patrick Spaulding Ryan
University of New South Wales Law Journal
Criminal Law and Evidence
article

Assessing Pre-Trial Silence: The Logic, Construction and Utility of Section 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Patrick Spaulding Ryan
article en

Abstract

Complexity arises when prosecutors invite an adverse inference from a defendant’s pre-trial silence under section 89A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Despite controversy surrounding this provision’s enactment, there has been limited scholarship analysing its underlying logic and application in practice. This article explains how a defendant’s pre-trial silence can logically support the prosecution case, albeit in limited ways. With reference to English cases concerning similar legislation, it then critiques the New South Wales courts’ approach to section 89A. This analysis reveals issues with their consideration of legal advice to remain silent, which diverges from the English approach, and the scope of ‘official questioning’ that may enliven the provision. In all, section 89A inferences involve intricate reasoning and have limited probative value, calling into question whether this curtailment of the right to silence is worthwhile.

University of New South Wales Law JournalVol. 48(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
Criminal Law and Evidence
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.