The appellant was convicted of supplying heroin. He and his co-defendant who had pleaded guilty, had been filmed on video. The appellant did not give evidence but contended that it was the other, not he, who had supplied the heroin and received the price.
Held: The defence had invited the jury to interpret a poor quality film in a certain way. This could scarcely engage the operation of section 34(1), and direction had been inappropriate: ‘As already noted, the appellant elected not to give, or call, any evidence at trial. Therefore he did not fail at the interview at the police station to mention, in the language of section 34(1), ‘any fact relied on in his defence at trial’.’
Citations:
[1998] EWCA Crim 259
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Webber HL 22-Jan-2004
The defendant complained that the judge had given a direction under s34 even though his counsel had only put matters to witnesses for the prosecution.
Held: A positive suggestion put to a witness by or on behalf of a defendant may amount to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Evidence
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.153133