D was charged with three co-defendants with conspiring to import cannabis. He gave a largely no comment interview to the interviewing customs officer, but at trial said that the contacts with his co-defendants were innocent. Since this account had not been given in interview, the judge gave a section 34 direction.
Held: The appeal failed ‘the words ‘any fact’ do not fall to be read only in the narrow sense of an actual deed or thing done but in the fuller sense contemplated by the Oxford English Dictionary of ‘something that . . is actually the case . . hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or to fiction’.’ and ‘it seems to us necessary to approach the meaning to be attributed to ‘any fact’ having regard to the apparent purpose of the statute and, in particular, the context and stage of proceedings with which s.34(1)(a) is concerned, that is to say the questioning of a suspect at a stage when the facts available to the prosecution without the benefit of any explanation of the defendant give rise to a suspicion or inference of his involvement in the crime under investigation, and the questioning is being directed to establishing whether such suspicion or inference is well founded in fact. The facts relevant to establishing whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime in respect of which he is being interrogated go far wider than the simple matter of what might have been observed to happen on a particular occasion and frequently involve what reasons or explanations the defendant gives for his involvement in the particular event observed which, if true, would absolve him from the suspicion of criminal intent or involvement which might otherwise arise. The significance for the jury of a failure by the defendant when first questioned to mention facts relied on at his trial is whether or not that failure is an indication that the facts which he now adopts or advances before the jury (including any explanation for his involvement in undisputed but equivocal events) can or cannot be relied on.’
Judges:
Potter LJ
Citations:
[2000] EWCA Crim 84
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice amd Public Order Act 1994 34
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Bowden (BT) CACD 10-Feb-1999
The defendant was charged with robbing a McDonald’s restaurant. He had refused to answer questions when interviewed on arrest, and his solicitor had put on record that this was on the grounds that the solicitor did not think the evidence strong . .
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
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.158734
