D argued that the words ‘any fact relied on in his defence’ in article 3 meant that it could apply only where a fact which the accused relied on was advanced by the accused in the witness box at the trial, or by a witness called at the trial on behalf of the accused. He also argued that he had not relied on any fact in his defence but had merely relied on the weakness of the prosecution case.
Held: ‘art 3 permits the court to draw an inference, not only at the trial in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, but also by virtue of art 3(2)(a) in determining ‘whether there is a case to answer’ . . the trial judge can draw an inference against the accused in ruling on an application by the accused for a direction that he has no case to answer before the accused, or any witness on his behalf, has been called to give evidence.’ and ‘at a trial the accused can ‘rely on a fact in his defence’ within the meaning of art 3 even though neither he nor a witness called on his behalf has given evidence of that fact.’
Judges:
Hutton LCJ, Higgins and Carswell JJ
Citations:
[1992] NI 168
Statutes:
Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (SI 1988/1987) 3
Jurisdiction:
Northern Ireland
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.192243