The defendant had given no answers during his police interview, but instead his solicitor read out a full written statement of his case. At trial, he did not depart from the statement thus provided. He appealed after the judge allowed the jury to make adverse inferences from his silence, on the basis that it had prevented the police testing his statement on interview.
Held: The section was directed to ensuring the early disclosure of a suspect’s case, not to provide for it to be tested. An inference should not have been permitted.
Judges:
Laws, LJ, Mitting, Rivlin QC, JJ
Citations:
Times 20-Aug-2003, Gazette 02-Oct-2003, [2003] EWCA Crim 1977
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34(1)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Confirmed – Howell v Regina CACD 17-Jan-2003
The court set down the general approach to be taken where a suspect refused to answer questions put during his interview by the police. . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Evidence
Updated: 26 August 2022; Ref: scu.185748
