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 defendant had himself given the jury at trial. The judge failed to tell the jury that they should only draw an inference against him if it was something which he could reasonably have been expected to mention.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Tuckey LJ discussed the operation of s34: ‘Once the preconditions to the operation of section 34 are satisfied the jury are entitled to draw: ‘such inferences from the failure as appear proper.’ ‘The usual inference which the jury are invited to draw is that at the time of the interview the defendant had no answer to the allegations being made against him or none that would stand up to questioning. In other words, his subsequent defence is a late fabrication or one which has been tailored to fit the prosecution case. But the prosecution in this case did not invite the jury to draw such inferences. In his directions to the jury the judge does not say what inference the jury could properly draw if they decided to do so. We think he should have done. He should have reminded the jury of the inference which the prosecution invited them to draw along the lines of the specimen direction.
. . . It was incumbent on the judge in his summing-up to identify the relevant inference.’
Judges:
Tuckey LJ
Citations:
Unreported, 9 June 2000
Statutes:
Criminal Justice nd Public Order Act 1994 34
Jurisdiction:
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.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.244805