The defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery. At interview, his solicitor had explained his failure to answer questions by reference to the involvement of others, but in terms which treated this itself as an admission.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the terms of the summing-up, as a whole, indicated plainly to the jury that it was for them and not for the judge to decide what had happened. He made it plain to them that unless they were sure that a robbery had taken place, they must acquit the defendant. ‘
Judges:
Rose LJ VP, Hidden, Penry-Davey JJ
Citations:
[1998] EWCA Crim 829
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Christie HL 1914
The House considered the admissibility in evidence of a false statement made in the defendant’s presence, but uncontradicted by him: ‘the rule of law undoubtedly is that a statement made in the presence of an accused person, even on an occasion . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.465033