||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 18 (May)
||Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Tuckey LJ, David Steel and Gloster JJ
||Lindsay Hayhow (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.
||Kevin Baumber (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.
||3 May 2005
Criminal evidence and procedure - Trial - Direction to jury - Inference to be drawn from accused's silence - Accused relying on prepared statement in interview and answering 'no comment' to questions - Accused giving evidence at trial broadly consistent with prepared statement - Judge directing jury to use common sense in determining whether assisted by silence in interview - Safety of conviction - , s 34.
In a case where the defendant had answered 'no comment' to questions asked of him in interview, but had produced a prepared statement which set out an account broadly consistent with the evidence he was later to give at trial, it had been incumbent on the recorder to direct the jury that they were not to draw an adverse inference from the silence in interview. Leaving whether such an inference might be drawn to the jury's common sense had been a significant failure, which rendered unsafe the defendant's conviction for possessing heroin with intent to supply.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary