The defendant had stayed silence at interview, and later at charge. During the trial, the judge ruled that the failure to answer questions at interview was inadmissible, but left to the jury the possibility of drawing adverse inferences from the silence at charge. He appealed.
Held: So long as the fairness of the trial was upheld, the judge was right in allowing a distinction between the two stages. The defendant had merely been put back at the position he would have been in but for the police failings, and had had full opportunity to explain at the trial why he had remained silent.
Lord Justice Kay, Sir Ian Kennedy and Judge David Clark QC
Gazette 21-Feb-2002,  EWCA Crim 2789
England and Wales
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167316