The court asked as to the modern application of the dicta in Christie with regard to the admissibility of false statements made in the presence of a defendant but uncontradicted by him. In this case there had been no positive act to adopt the lie.
Held: The silence was not evidence against the defendant: ‘a person is entitled to refrain from answering a question put to him for the purpose of discovering whether he has committed a criminal offence. A fortiori he is under no obligation to comment when he is informed that someone else has accused him of an offence. It may be that in very exceptional circumstances an inference may be drawn from a failure to give an explanation or disclaimer, but in their Lordship’s view silence alone on being informed by a police officer that someone else has made an accusation against him cannot give rise to an inference that the person to whom this information is communicated accepts the truth of the accusation.’ and ‘The caution merely serves to remind the accused of a right which he already possesses at common law. The fact that in a particular case he has not been reminded of it is no ground for inferring that his silence was not in the exercise of that right, but that was an acknowledgement of the truth of the accusation.’
Judges:
Lord Diplock
Citations:
(1970) 55 Cr App 108
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 by:
Cited – Collins and Keep v Regina CACD 28-Jan-2004
When arrested with a co-defendant, C had said nothing as his co-defendant gave a false explanation. He now appealed his conviction saying that the judge had left with the jury the question of whether he was adopting that lie by his own silence.
Not followed – Regina v Chandler CACD 1975
The defendant had refused to comment on allegations put to him when interviewed by the police. His solicitor was present.
Held: After quoting Hall, the court commented: ‘We have reservations about these two statements of law because they seem . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.192655
