You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn’t been appalled by the cases here in New Zealand where a child has been killed and the people who know full well what has happened have kept their mouths shut.

They’re able to do that because of the right to remain silent, which National has announced it wants to get rid of in cases where a child under the age of 12 has been killed.

I’m one of those people appalled by those examples we’ve seen where it’s obvious someone knows something, but they haven’t said anything to protect themselves and/or those responsible.

The most well-known case would probably be the Kahui twins. But there have been others too.

But even though I’ve been appalled by these cases, I’m opposed to National’s plan, because however much we might not like it, the right to remain silent is fundamental.

Defence lawyer and former Crown prosecutor John Munro doesn’t like National’s plan either. He says the policy would have to go through the Attorney-General, Crown Law, the select committee and other parliamentary processes.

Then outfits such as the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association would want to be involved and, most likely, they’d be opposed to it.

Not that that would necessarily stop National, if it forms the next Government, from doing what it wants to do. Because we’ve seen Governments before ignore concerns raised by the likes of the Attorney-General.

But I think what National’s proposing would be a step too far.

Not just because of the potential for innocent people to say stuff or be forced to say stuff that could work against them.

But, once you start taking away the right to silence in some situations, where do you stop?

If you take away the right to silence for people who might know stuff when a child is killed, what’s to stop more exemptions being added to the list?

Because, when it comes to the law, precedent is everything.

What’s more, forcing someone to speak doesn’t mean they’re going to tell the truth.

Also, the Bill of Rights isn’t a nice-to-have, or something you stick with only when it suits.

Ironically, perhaps, National has announced this policy three years since the killing of Lower Hutt toddler Baby Ru.

I mentioned the Kahui twins before. This is another case where people have used their right to remain silent and, three years on, no one’s been held accountable.

He would have been turning five this week if he was still alive. But he’s not, because of the blunt force trauma he suffered that was so severe it fractured his skull.

It’s useful to remind ourselves of that shocking case when we consider National’s plan, which would take away the right to silence for the likes of the three people who were on the scene when Ru was injured.

But even that’s not enough to make me think this idea of National’s is a good one.

LISTEN ABOVE