Regina v Johnson; Regina v Hind: CACD 11 Apr 2005

The defendant had when at the police station refused to leave his cell to attend for interview. At trial, the judge said that the jury could take account of this as a failure to mention when questioned, something which he now wished to rely upon.
Held: No questioning had taken place, and the inference could not be left to the jury to be drawn. He had been cautioned in his cell, but that remained inadequate. The judge had sought to bring the issue in under s34(5) as under common law. That interpretation of Raviraj was inappropriate, and the common law position was better reflected by Gilbert.


Lord Woolf LCJ, Ousely J, Treacy J


Times 03-May-2005


Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Gilbert CACD 1977
The defendant on a charge of murder had claimed at trial that he had acted in self-defence. He had not said anything of this sort in his police statement under caution. The trial judge had invited the jury, in the exercise of their common sense, to . .
CitedRegina v Raviraj CACD 1986
The court described the circumstances where a defendant’s failure to provide an account of circumstances might lead to an inference being drawn against him: ‘where suspicious circumstances appear to demand an explanation, and no explanation . . . is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.224883