inferences of silence Flashcards
what is the privilege against self incrimination.
cant be complied to give an answer.
witnesses giving evidence cannot be complied to give answers to questions where the answer may implicate them In an offence.
applies to all criminal proceedings.
right to silence.
no duty to answer police questions some exceptions of terrorism.
not duty to answer under caution
defendant not compellable as witness.
why have the right to silence.
innocent till proven guilty
some defendants make poor witnesses.
when can inferences be drawn under echo s6.
Must have access to legal advice.
facts must be such as call for an explanation from the accused.
Must be prima facie case Condron v uk.
Jury directed to consider reason for silence must be satisfied that silence could only sensibly be attributed to d having no answer to give.
Must not be sole or main evidence for conviction.
adverse inferences.
failure to mention something that they later rely on
failure to give evidence at trial.
account for incrimination marks objects substances
presence at a particular place.
on being questioned
On being questioned…..
if the circumstances are such that he is expressly or by necessary implication invited to give his account of the matter which has given rise to the interview. It is not necessary that specific questions are asked of him.
under caution.
Under caution …..
Code of practice c para 10.5.
‘’may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court’’
failed to mention any fact relied on.
Can mention fact in prepared statement. No inference can then be drawn from failure to answer questions.
But inferences may be drawn form omissions of facts from the statement.
Facts mean anything d claims to be a fact not a speculative possibility.
Discrepancy between facts in statements and evidence may be better dealt with as lies rather than failure to mention.
circumstances at the time.
Matters of the day the defendants age experience mental capacity state of health tiredness personality and legal advice.
reasonable expected to mention.
. It is for the jury to decide whether the fact …[is one] which in the circumstances as they actually existed the actual defendant could reasonably have been expected to mention.”
quote from Howell.
what was the point of having a solicitor if I wasn’t going to listen to their advice..
hoare quote.
assumption that an innocent defendant would give early explanation to demonstrate with innocence.
murry v uk quote.
unlikely that inferences can be drawn prior to legal advice.
legal advice minefield.
If genuinely reasonably relied on legal advice no inference
If lawyer advised silence, it isn’t usually reasonable to stay silent.
Can suspect be expected to judge adequacy of reasons for legal advice.
what does the judge have to direct the jury of.
reasons that a person may stay silent they have the right to remain silent.
