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 incorrect, the judge having left open the inferences which might be drawn.
Held: The direction had not excluded other possible inferences, but this was insufficient in this case to support the appeal. However, the judge had failed to say that no inference should be drawn unless no explanation for the silence had been given. The defendants had given explanations. This amounted to a misdirection.
Rix LJ recalled that the Judicial Studies Board direction provided that the jury should be directed that ‘an inference should only be drawn if . . the prosecution’s case is `so strong that it clearly calls for an answer by him”. This was a striking way to reflect the need identified in R v Cowan for there needed to be a case to answer.
Rix LJ, Douglas Brown J, Sir Richard Tucker
[2003] EWCA Crim 2668, [2004] 1 Cr App R 22
Bailii
Criminal Justice nd Public Order Act 1994 34
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Jones and Jenkins CACD 6-Jun-2003
The two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. On the prosecution case it was joint enterprise; Jones’ case was that both had indeed attacked the victim, but had caused him only minor injuries and that the fatal injuries had been . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Ramadan El-Delbi, Regina v CACD 20-Jun-2003
The court considered an appeal where the jury had been invited to draw an inference from the defendant’s silence at interview that the defendant ‘had not had a chance to prepare his story’ as being its equivalent.
Held: The court accepted the . .
Cited – Regina v McGarry CACD 16-Jul-1998
Where the judge decided that no inference could be drawn from the defendant’s silence, because of the absence of facts which could have been mentioned, he had a duty positively to warn the jury not arbitrarily to draw adverse inferences from the . .
Cited – Regina v Birchall CACD 20-Jan-1998
The judge had failed in his direction to remind the jury that they had to find a case to answer before drawing any adverse inference from the defendant’s silence at trial
Held: The court must be careful not to omit any elements of the standard . .
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 Gill CACD 21-Jul-2000
When a defendant was silent, it was necessary for the court to be especially careful to give precise and accurate directions on the effect of such silence as to the drawing of adverse inferences. Having answered questions on some aspects, it was not . .
Cited – Regina v JO CACD 9-Jun-2000
The defendant who was aged 16 gave a no comment interview on the advice of his solicitor. At trial he waived privilege and his solicitor gave evidence that he had given him before interview a very similar account of the incident to that which the . .
Cited – Regina v Daly CACD 23-Nov-2001
CS Kennedy LJ: ‘we accept that if the jury was to be permitted to draw an inference a careful direction was required, for two interrelated reasons. First, there were matters on which the defendant was entitled to . .
Cited – Regina v Prater CCA 1960
Where one defendant gave evidence incriminating his co-defendant, just as in cases where an accomplice gave evidence for the prosecution, a full corroboration warning was desirable. . .
Cited – Regina v Knowlden and Knowlden CACD 1983
The court set out warnings for the jury when considering evidence from a co-accused. The rule in Prater was not a rule of law but ultimately in the discretion of the judge: and that ‘the customary clear warning to examine the evidence of each . .
Cited – Regina v Cheema CACD 5-Sep-1993
There is no rule requiring full a corroboration direction to be given for a co-defendant’s evidence to be admitted. The Court of Appeal recommended a review of law on corroboration of a witness’s evidence. Lord Taylor CJ said: ‘The rule of practice . .
Cited – Regina v Francom; Regina v Latif (Clare); Regina v Latif (Melna); Regina v Bevis; Regina v Harker CACD 24-Oct-2000
The judge failed to give a direction in accordance with recommendations from the Judicial Studies Board and counsel in the case as to the need for the jury not to draw inferences from the defendants’ failure to mention certain facts on interview. . .
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 . .
Cited – Najib v Regina CACD 12-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder saying that the court had given inadequate directions as to his ‘no comment’ interview, the need to treat the evidence of a co-accused with caution, and the need for a bad character direction. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.186823