The defendant appealed against his conviction for criminal damage. He had been accused of scratching an obscene message on a car. In doing so the person had misspelled the car owner’s name. When asked to write out the message, on interview the defendant had repeated the same misspelling four times. Expert evidence was unable to compare the handwritten notes with the scratching of the car. The defendant said that the the notes should not have been admitted at all.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Section 76 did not assist the defendant. There had been no oppression or any other element to make any confession unreliable.
As to the complaint that the officer had not disclosed the misspelling: ‘The Recorder was also correct . . to find that the police were not obliged to disclose every piece of evidence that they had. The purpose of the pre-interview disclosure derives from the realisation by the police that, without proper disclosure, solicitors cannot properly advise their clients. They voluntarily provide disclosure in order to counter an argument at trial that no adverse inferences should be drawn under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 from the suspect’s failure to answer questions. There are, we understand, no rules or established procedure about this disclosure. The quality and quantity of disclosure will depend on the case. The officer must assess the risk of giving inadequate disclosure, namely that no adverse inferences will be drawn.’
Buxton LJ, Simon, Tiling JJ
[2004] EWCA Crim 599
Bailii
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Voisin 1918
The defendant stood charged with the murder of a woman, part of whose body was found in a parcel along with a handwritten note bearing the words ‘Bladie Belgiam’. The defendant, who had not yet been cautioned, was asked by the police to write the . .
Cited – Regina v Roble CACD 21-Jan-1997
The defendant appealed against his conviction for wounding with intent. He had answered ‘no comment’ in the police interview, but claimed self defence at trial. The court considered what note should be taken of the solicitor’s evidence of his advice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 August 2021; Ref: scu.448366
