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 rely to explain the silence at interview, despite the form of the caution administered to him. [Sc Secondly,] At that stage he had not seen the video film, he was therefore unaware of the full weight of the prosecution case against him and in the light of his solicitor’s advice he may have been understandably reluctant to admit a lesser but still serious offence. That made it particularly important in this case for the judge to say to the jury that they should only be prepared to draw an adverse inference if satisfied that the only sensible explanation for the appellant’s failure to give in interview the explanation which he gave in his defence statement and at trial was that at the time of the interview he had no answer to the charge, or none that would stand up to questioning and investigation. It was important that the jury not be left at liberty to draw an adverse inference notwithstanding that it might have been satisfied with the plausibility of the appellant’s explanation for his silence (see Condron v. United Kingdom (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 1 at paragraph 61 and R. v. Betts and Hall [2001] 2 Cr. App. R. 251, at paragraph 48).’
Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Bell, And, Mr Justice Cooke
[2001] EWCA Crim 2643, [2002] 2 Cr App R 14
Bailii
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
England and Wales
Cited by:
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.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.166921 br>