3-Silence and Inferences Flashcards
why is there a right to silence
stops self incrimination
prosecution role to prove guilt not vice versa
what is the exception to right to silence
terrorism act 2000
what act changed it so that inferences could be made form silence
criminal justice public order act
what 4 circumstances can things be inferred from silence
s34- when questioned and later rely on in court
s35- silence in court
s36-failure to account for objects
s37-failure to account for presence
who decides whether inferences can be made
the judge
what is section 34 of the crim justice public order act
when D doesn’t mention something when charged or questioned which he could have been reasonably expected to say
section 34 2 says the jury can infer what
they can infer that there has been fabrication or adjustment to stand scrutiny
r v argent
no disclosure does not mean entitled to silence
r v sanders
jury question to see if disclosure was fair
no disclosure can sometimes explain why something not mentioned
what are advantages of silence
why help police
self incrimination
wrong version of events used against
no evidence no charge
disadvantages of silence
if the d does not mention when charged jury can infer
why not put argument forward straight away
lose credit of early guilty plea
does advice to remain silent remove inferences
no not all inferences
Beckles- depends on whether they genuinely and reasonably rely on advice
what are other factors which explain silence (howell)
ill health, disability, confusion, intoxication, shock
what is section 36
suspicious objects, marks etc found on person (if at home then full wardrobe) if can’t explain or stay silent then inferences drawn
inferences can be drawn from unsatisfactory explanations
what is section 37 a and b
cant explain when a constable either
a) finds you at certain location
b) suspects you to be at a location
what is required of police to use for both section 36 and 37
special caution
what is a special caution
police say offence investigating
what is being asked for and why it links
if fail to answer then inferences can be drawn
what is section 35
when inferences can be maid from silence in court
when can’t inferences be made from court silence and which case
friend- physical or mental condition
what does silence not prove
guilt- murray v UK
what does judge tell jury about silence in court
burden on prosecution and silence doesn’t mean guilt, could suggest that explanation doesn’t stand up in court though
