Bowers and Millan complained that the direction given under section 34 was impermissible. The ground of complaint was that they had not relied on any fact by way of defence, but had simply put the prosecution to proof.
Held: The court asked what evidence had been presented: ‘A fact relied on may, in our judgment, be established by the accused himself in evidence, by a witness called on his behalf, or by a prosecution witness, in evidence-in-chief, or in cross-examination. In the present case, there was, it is common ground, no such fact.’
Citations:
[1998] EWCA Crim 918, [1999] Crim LR 77
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Becouarn HL 28-Jul-2005
At his trial for murder, the defendant had not given evidence, and the court had allowed the jury to draw proper inferences under s35.
Held: The JSB direction ‘on drawing inferences [i]s sufficiently fair to defendants, emphasising as it does . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.153792