Regina v Raviraj: CACD 1986

The court described the circumstances where a defendant’s failure to provide an account of circumstances might lead to an inference being drawn against him: ‘where suspicious circumstances appear to demand an explanation, and no explanation . . . is given, the lack of explanation may warrant an inference of guilty knowledge in the defendant.’


Stocker LJ


(1986) 85 Cr App 93


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Gilbert CACD 1977
The defendant on a charge of murder had claimed at trial that he had acted in self-defence. He had not said anything of this sort in his police statement under caution. The trial judge had invited the jury, in the exercise of their common sense, to . .

Cited by:

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.
CitedRegina v Johnson; Regina v Hind CACD 11-Apr-2005
The defendant had when at the police station refused to leave his cell to attend for interview. At trial, the judge said that the jury could take account of this as a failure to mention when questioned, something which he now wished to rely upon. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Evidence

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.192659