Black v Regina: CACD 17 Jul 2020

Disclosure Sufficient to Support Inference

The court was asked whether sufficient evidence had been adduced about the strength of the prosecution case at the time of interview, to permit an adverse inference to be drawn from the failure to mention specific facts pursuant to section 34 of the 1994 Act. The defendant was said to have made multiple false representations to customers when selling solar panel systems. He made no comment on interview, but said that he had believed that adequate financial arrangements had been in place to secure the promise made. He said that the particulars given had been inadequate to allow the drawing of an inference on failing to answer.
Held: here was, in this case, sufficient evidence about the strength of the prosecution case to justify giving the jury a direction under section 34 of the CJPOA 1994. This is because Mr Black confirmed in cross examination that he had lived through events and he had been given disclosure before the interview. Living through events meant, in the particular context of this case, producing a scheme by which solar panels were sold to customers on the basis that they would be repaid 100 per cent of the costs of purchase and installation within five or seven years. T

Dingemans LJ VP QBD Cheema-Grub J, Mayo HHJ
[2020] EWCA Crim 915
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 3
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Cowan and Another CACD 12-Oct-1995
Detailed directions were provided for the judge to give to a jury where a defendant chooses not to give evidence in his defence in the Crown Court.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth said: ‘1. The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof . .
CitedRegina v Condron, Condron CACD 17-Oct-1996
The defendants were charged with the supply of heroin. They had declined to answer police questions and it was on the record that their solicitor had advised them not to do so, on the grounds that he considered them unfit because they were . .
CitedBrizzalari 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 . .
CitedCondron v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-May-2000
A direction to a jury about an accused person’s silence during police questioning was inadequate to protect the right to a fair trial. The applicants had been advised by their solicitor to remain silent during interview because they were withdrawing . .
CitedBeckles 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 . .
CitedRegina v Argent CACD 16-Dec-1996
The defendant complained that, after acting on his solicitor’s advice to not answer questions when interviewed by the police, the court had allowed the jury to draw inferences from his failure. The police had failed to make such full disclosure of . .
CitedRegina v Birchall 1999
. .
CitedPetkar and Farquar, Regina v CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants appealed their convictions and sentence for theft. Whilst employed by a bank thay had arranged for transfers to their own account. Each blamed the other. They appealed on the basis that the direction on their silence at interview was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.652602