The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The Court of Human Rights had found that the inference drawn from that silence at trial infringed his right to a fair trial. The court at his trial had referred to his silence without reminding the jury that he was ready to provide independent evidence of the exchanges with his solicitor.
Held: As a matter of fairness, the jury should have been told of the readiness of the defendant to explain his silence. It was difficult to achieve fairness. On the one hand the defendant was entitled to confidential advice from his solicitor, and on the other the courts had to ensure that s34 was effective. If it was reasonable for a defendant to have said nothing, that was the end of the matter. If it was not, but he relied upon legal advice to justify silence, it might be possible to say that he genuinely acted upon the advice, but he did so because it suited his purpose, and the reasonableness of his silence remained to be determined by the jury. The standard jury direction is being revised to achieve this purpose, and under the revised direction the jury will be asked to consider whether the defendant genuinely and reasonably relied on the legal advice to remain silent.
Judges:
Lord Woolf LCJ, McCombe J, David Clarke J
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Crim 2766, Times 17-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 Cr App 23
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1995 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Beckles v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Oct-2002
The applicant had been convicted of serious offences, in part in reliance upon inferences drawn from his partial silence during interview. At trial, he said this had been on legal advice, and was ready to answer questions about that advice, but none . .
Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v James Hanratty (Deceased) CACD 10-May-2002
Posthumous Appeal – Clear Purpose and Care Needed
An appeal was presented against the conviction for a murder many years earlier. The prosecution sought to introduce DNA evidence to support its case. The appellant party objected.
Held: The purpose of the appeal was to achieve justice, and . .
Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
Limits to Requests for Adverse Inferences
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
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 B (K J) CACD 1-Dec-2003
s34 is ‘a notorious minefield’. . .
Cited – Regina v Bowden (BT) CACD 10-Feb-1999
The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald’s restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong . .
Cited – Regina v Allan CACD 2004
The court specifically rejected the argument that the decision of the ECtHR was irrelevant. . .
Cited – Raymond Christopher Betts, John Anthony Hall v Regina CACD 9-Feb-2001
The defendants appealed convictions for causing grievous bodily harm. During interviw, the solicitor had advised that since the police had failed to make proper disclosure of the evidence, his client should not answer. He now appealed complaining of . .
Cited – Regina v Hoare and Pierce CACD 2-Apr-2004
The court considered the drawing of adverse inferences form an accused’s silence in the police station when this was under legal advice: ‘The question in the end, it is for the jury, is whether regardless of advice, genuinely given and genuinely . .
Cited – Regina v Chenia CACD 1-Nov-2002
CS The defendant had made no comment replies during interview. He did not give evidence at trial, but otherwise took part, though he did not put any fact before the jury. The judge directed the jury that they . .
Cited – Regina v Knight CACD 29-Jul-2003
The defendant had given no answers during his police interview, but instead his solicitor read out a full written statement of his case. At trial, he did not depart from the statement thus provided. He appealed after the judge allowed the jury to . .
Cited – Howell v Regina CACD 17-Jan-2003
The court set down the general approach to be taken where a suspect refused to answer questions put during his interview by the police. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Boyle and Another CACD 25-Aug-2006
The appellants had been convicted of murder. They complained that the judge had misdirected the jury as to the effect of their silence and the inferences to be drawn.
Held: The appeals failed. Whilst the direction on s34 was defective, it had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219518