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 might draw adverse inferences from his silence. He appealed.
Held: The facts put forward at trial must include facts put forward by prosecution witnesses. There had been a misdirection, because the judge had failed to direct the jury on the need to be sure there was no innocent explanation of the defendant’s silence. However, there was no substantial departure from fairness and the verdict stood. ‘We can see that there is scope for argument as to whether the mere putting of a fact to a witness in cross-examination would be sufficient to amount to reliance upon it for the purpose of s.34, although we can think of circumstances in which it might be. However, it is not necessary to resolve that question for the purposes of this appeal.’ and ‘It would in our view have been desirable for the judge to include a direction of the kind suggested, namely that no question of drawing an adverse inference could arise unless the jury were sure that there was a case to answer. However, we do not think that this trial could possibly be held to be unfair or the conviction unsafe on that ground. That is because no jury could possibly have concluded that there was no case to answer on the facts.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Clarke, Mr Justice Pitchford and Judge Fabyan Evans
Citations:
Gazette 09-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Crim 2345, [2003] 2 Cr App R 83
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Cited – Beckles, Regina v CACD 12-Nov-2004
The appellant had been convicted in 1997 of robbery and false imprisonment. His case was now refererred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defendant had, on advice from his solicitor refused to answer questions at the police station. The . .
Cited – Petkar 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, Evidence
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.177940