Regina v Osborne: CACD 2 Nov 2005

The defendant challenged admission of a statement made in his presence but not contradicted by him.
Held: The court must first ask whether the defendant’s reaction was relevant. Where acquiescence was alleged, three considerations arose: 1) Could a jury properly directed conclude that the defendant did adopt the statement, 2) Was it sufficiently relevant to warrant inclusion, and 3) would the admission be so unfair as to warrant its exclusion. The case satisfied those tests and the appeal failed.


Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ, Rafferty J, Mackay J


Times 17-Nov-2005


England and Wales


CitedCollins and Keep v Regina CACD 28-Jan-2004
When arrested with a co-defendant, C had said nothing as his co-defendant gave a false explanation. He now appealed his conviction saying that the judge had left with the jury the question of whether he was adopting that lie by his own silence.
CitedRex v Christie HL 1914
The House considered the admissibility in evidence of a false statement made in the defendant’s presence, but uncontradicted by him: ‘the rule of law undoubtedly is that a statement made in the presence of an accused person, even on an occasion . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.235142