Hong Kong has come to a turning point in the implementation of the right to silence after its sovereignty reverted to mainland China in 1997. While the United Kingdom began to draw adverse inferences from silence, China moved towards protection against involuntary confessions through legal reforms and the Bill of Rights was passed in Hong Kong in 1997. The Rules and Directions for administering the Caution and treatment of persons in custody in Hong Kong were issued in 1992 but do not have the force of law. Ambiguity in the wording of the Caution is a problem for both law enforcers and suspects. Analysis of the documents served on the suspect and a comparison with the statutory requirements for the Independent Commission Against Corruption, suggest a need for codification of the treatment of persons in custody. The results of this study of 150 Customs officers suggests that there might be benefits in rewording the Caution. Furthermore, statistical tests show that professional training and recruitment of front-line officers with higher academic qualifications would safeguard the administration of justice.
AzzopardiJ. H. (2002, April). Disclosure at the police station, the right of silence and DPP v. ARA. Criminal Law Review, 295–300.
2.
BergerM. (1995). Of policy, politics, and parliament: The legislative rewriting of the British Right to Silence. American Journal of Criminal Law, 22, 391–438.
3.
ChenG. Z.SongY. H. (2000). Research on the issues in implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law. Beijing: China Legal System Publishing House.
4.
ChiuW. K. (2006). Law enforcement and the disciplined services in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Sun Light Printing.
5.
CookeD.PhilipL. (1998). Comprehending the Scottish Caution: Do offenders understand their right to remain silent?Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 13–27.
6.
ColdreyJ. (1991). The right to silence: Should it be curtailed or abolished?Anglo-American Law Review, 20(1), 51–62.
7.
Customs & Excise Department. (2005a). Procedures in Relation to Stop, Search, Arrest and Taking of Statement (Brochure). Hong Kong: Author.
FennerS.GudjonssonG. H.ClareI. C. H. (2002). Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12(2), 83–93.
10.
FindlayM. (2007). China's place in international criminal justice. In Conference Organising Committee (Ed.), Crime, Law and Justice in Chinese Societies: Global Challenges and Local Responses: Legal Reform 1 (pp. 55–56). Chinese University of Hong Kong: School of Law and Department of Sociology.
11.
GreerS. (1994). The right to silence, defence disclosure, and confession evidence. Journal of the Law Society, 21(1), 102–118.
12.
HeilbronnG. N. (1995). Criminal Procedure in Hong Kong (pp. 16, 17, 27–33) (3rd ed.). Longman: Hong Kong.
13.
Hong Kong Government. (1992). Hong Kong Government Gazette 1992, Special Supplement Number 5.
14.
IngrahamB. L. (1996). The right of silence, the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and a modest proposal: A reply to O'Reilly. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(2), 559–595.
15.
KleinS. R. (2003). No time for silence. Texas Law Review, 81(5), 1337–1360.
16.
Law Reform Commission. (1985). Confession statements and their admissibility in criminal proceedings: Topic 8. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.
17.
Law Reform Commission. (1992). Report on arrest: Topic 25. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.
18.
Law Reform Commission. (1998). Consultation paper on the procedure governing the admissibility of confession statements in criminal proceedings. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.
19.
Law Reform Commission. (2000). Report on the procedure governing the admissibility of confession statements in criminal proceedings. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.
20.
LeoR. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(2), 266–303.
21.
LuH.MietheT. D. (2003). Confessions and criminal case disposition in China. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 549–578.
22.
LuoW. (2000). The amended Criminal Procedural Law and the Criminal Court Rules of the People's Republic of China. Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co., Inc.
23.
MaY. (2003). The powers of the police and the rights of suspects under the amended Criminal Procedure Law of China. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(3), 490–510.
24.
McGoldrickD. (1991). The Human Rights Committee, its role in the development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
25.
O'ReillyG. W. (1994). England limits the right to silence and moves towards an inquisitorial system of justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(2), 402–452.
26.
PattendenR. (1995, August). Inferences from silence. Criminal Law Review, pp. 602–611.
27.
SuiS. C. (1984). The criminal law in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Rabrodent. (Please contact the author for further details.)
28.
SullivanT. P. (2005). Electronic recording of custodial interrogations: Everybody wins. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95(3), 1127–1144.
29.
ToneyR. J. (2002). English criminal procedure under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Implications for custodial interrogation practices. Houston Journal of International Law, 24, 411–474.
30.
WinstonK. (2003). On the ethics of exporting ethics: The right to silence in Japan and the US. Criminal Justice Ethics, 22(1), 3–20.
31.
YueL. L.ChenR. H. (1997). International standards on criminal justice and the amended Criminal Procedure Law. Tribune of Political Science and Law, 3, 44–56.
32.
Yue (2003) The powers of the police and the rights of suspects under the amended Criminal Procedure Law of China. Policing, 26(3), 490–510.
33.
ZanderM. (1990). The Police and Criminal Evidence Act. London: Sweet and Maxwell.
