Defining the limits of the common-law, South African and European privilege against self-incrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental first generation procedural right of the Anglo-American adversarial system. Its origin is to be found some 700 years ago in the political-legal struggle for supremacy between the canon law prerogative courts of the English monarch and the indigenous common-law courts. Together with its corollary principle, the right to silence, the privilege has had a significant jurisprudential influence on the procedural law of all western systems of justice. The primary purpose of this article is to make a comparative study of the privilege in major commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, Australia, Canada and South Africa in order to explain the nature of the common-law and statutory privilege, and to expose the jurisdictional variations in the privilege's application. A secondary purpose is to contrast the common-law privilege with that of the continental privilege defined in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and to identify unique principles of the common-law and European privilege which may be successfully incorporated into the South African privilege. An incidental purpose of the article is to comprehensively explain the principal requirements of the privilege, thereby adding to the corpus of knowledge about the South African privilege which has previously been treated in a somewhat cursory fashion by most scholarly works and court decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".