At his trial for murder, the defendant had not given evidence, and the court had allowed the jury to draw proper inferences under s35.
Held: The JSB direction ‘on drawing inferences [i]s sufficiently fair to defendants, emphasising as it does that the jury must conclude that the only sensible explanation of his failure to give evidence is that he has no answer to the case against him, or none that could have stood up to cross-examination.’ The court retains an overriding discretion in any particular case to decline to allow previous convictions to be put or inferences to be drawn if he thinks it unfair.
Judges:
Steyn, Hoffmann, Hope of Craighead, Scott of Foscoe, Carswell LL
Citations:
[2005] UKHL 55, Times 01-Aug-2005
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 35
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Butterwasser 1948
If a defendant put his character in issue by attacking the character of the prosecution witnesses, but did not himself give evidence, he would escape the consequences of having his convictions put in evidence. . .
Cited – Regina v Taylor CACD 1999
The appellant, who had previous convictions, did not give evidence, and the trial judge gave a direction in accordance with section 35.
Held: The Court rejected a submission by the appellant’s counsel that the judge should have not have told . .
Cited – Regina v Bowers, Taylor, Millan CACD 13-Mar-1998
Bowers and Millan complained that the direction given under section 34 was impermissible. The ground of complaint was that they had not relied on any fact by way of defence, but had simply put the prosecution to proof.
Held: The court asked . .
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 Lucas (Ruth) CACD 1981
People sometimes tell lies for reasons other than a belief that they are necessary to conceal guilt.
Four conditions were identified which must be satisfied before a defendant’s lie could be seen as supporting the prosecution case:-
(1) . .
Cited – Regina v Selvey HL 1970
A defendant was not to be asked about any previous convictions, unless he had ‘lost his shield’ and incurred liability to such cross-examination by putting his own character in issue, either by putting questions or giving evidence with a view to . .
Cited – Regina v Bathurst CACD 1968
The judge was bound to direct the jury that a defendant was fully entitled to sit back and see if the prosecution had proved its case, and that they must not make any assumption of guilt from the fact that he had not gone into the witness box. . .
Cited – Regina v Napper CACD 1995
The operation of section 35 is not to be reduced or marginalised. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.229070