Inferences from D's silence and other conduct

Question 1

What direction must be given in relation to lies?

Answer 1

Lucas direction:
Juries must be warned of forbidden reasoning that lies by their very nature demonstrate guilt
(a) Lie must be deliberate and relate to a material issue
(b) Must be satisfied that there was no innocent motive for the lie
(c) Lie must be established by evidence other than that of the witness who is to be corroborated

Question 2

When must a Lucas direction be given?

Answer 2

TJ usually required to give Lucas direction when:

(a) Defence is an alibi
(b) when jury should look for corroboration
(c) where P seeks to show something said by D was a lie and rely on that as evidence of guilt
(d) where TJ envisages that the jury may find a lie as evidence of guilt

Question 3

D’s silence in interview:

Answer 3

s. 34 CJPOA 1994:
Can only arise during/before charge and is summarised as:
-Whilst under caution
-Whilst being questioned by a P.O
-About D’s suspected involvement with the offence
-Fails to mention a fact
-That D could have reasonably been expected to mention in the circumstances
-Later relies on that fact as part of defence
-Tribunal of fact may draw an inference

Question 4

Convictions wholly on silence:

Answer 4

s. 38:No conviction can be made solely from inferences under s,34, 35, 36 or 37

Question 5

Failure to account for objects, substances or marks:

Answer 5

s. 36 CJPOA:
- D has been arrested
- Has an object, substance or mark sufficiently proximate to their person
- Was proximate to them at the time of the arrest
- a constable reasonably believes that it is attributable to the accused’s participation in a specified crime
- constable informs accused of this belief and requests an explanation
- constable informs the accused in the ordinary language of the consequence of refusal to provide an explanation (special warning)

Question 6

Failure to account for presence at the scene of the crime:

Answer 6

s. 37 CJPOA:
- D has been arrested
- is present at the scene of the crime
- Was proximate to them at the time of the arrest
- a constable reasonably believes that it is attributable to the accused’s participation in a specified crime
- constable informs accused of this belief and requests an explanation
- constable informs the accused in the ordinary language of the consequence of refusal to provide an explanation (special warning)

Question 7

Failure of D to give evidence at trial:

Answer 7

s. 35 CJPOA:
In order for an AI to be drawn under this section, D must:

1. Be told at the conclusion of P’s case that the time has now arrived when D may give evidence
2. Be warned that the jury may draw an AI from failure to testify
   (if CC trial, must be done in presence of jury so it is aware D has made an informed decision )