SAUNDERS v. UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS, JOINED BY JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ 35 DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS, JOINED BY JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ (Translation) In the evolution of criminal procedure since the time when confession was the decisive form of evidence and interrogation, indeed inquisitorial procedure in general, was the preferred means of obtaining it - and when, as a result, the term "the question" had eventually come to be synonymous with "torture" - we have reached the other extreme, that is the right not to incriminate oneself at all. However, there may be disagreement about the scope of this principle. As the Court says, the Government submitted that the right not to incriminate oneself was neither absolute nor immutable and that this applied in particular to investigations of commercial and financial fraud, which were especially complex. It might be thought that where someone exercises the right to remain silent and relies on the right not to incriminate himself this could give rise to suspicion, although admittedly it would not be a kind of implicit confession. But that is not the issue here. What is in issue is that inspectors acting pursuant to the Companies Act 1985 asked Mr Saunders questions which he was obliged to answer or be convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The Government submitted, however, that none of the statements made at the time incriminated Mr Saunders. But they might have done or they might have been used in another case. However, a sense of proportion must be kept and some account taken of priorities. In his dissenting opinion Judge Martens makes that point very persuasively, and I agree with him. Seeking to elevate to the status of an absolute rule the right of persons suspected of criminal offences, including serious crimes, not to incriminate themselves and not to answer any question which might incriminate them would mean in many cases that society was left completely defenceless in the face of ever more complex activities in a commercial and financial world that has reached an unprecedented level of sophistication. Defence of the innocent must not result in impunity for the guilty. In the dilemma on this point, which has been commented on, often in exaggerated terms, since ancient times, there is room for reasonable middle courses. In this field, as in many others, a proper sense of proportion must be the guiding rule. In conclusion, I do not consider that there has been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in this case.