In the police station, the defendant had declined to answer police question, but had instead provided a written statement.
Held: The practice had the danger that if, at trial, he discovered that something had been omitted from the statement, an inference might be sought to be drawn under the section. Here the written statement broadly accorded with the evidence he gave at trial, but there was one difference. The judge had invited the jury to draw an adverse inference merely from the defendant’s failure to answer questions. That should have been limited to his failure to mention facts. The conviction was unsafe. In the case of such inconsistencies, it might be better for a judge to ask the jury to treat that earlier statement as a lie.
Judges:
Scott Bakler LJ, Henriques J, Stanley Burton J
Citations:
Times 14-Nov-2003
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34
Criminal Practice
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.188681
