Inferences from silence

Question 1

When can a jury draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence during a police interview?

Answer 1

A jury may infer guilt if the defendant fails to mention a fact during police questioning that they later rely on in court (e.g., claiming innocence at trial but remaining silent during interview).

Question 2

What happens if a defendant refuses to give evidence at trial?

Answer 2

The jury may be directed that they can infer guilt from the defendant’s refusal or failure to testify, suggesting the silence may indicate there is no innocent explanation.

Question 3

In what circumstances can silence about an object, substance, or mark lead to an adverse inference?

Answer 3

If a defendant fails to explain, when questioned, the presence of suspicious items (e.g., a stolen laptop or drugs), the jury may infer that the failure indicates guilt.

Question 4

How does a defendant’s failure to explain their presence at a crime scene affect the case?

Answer 4

If the defendant cannot provide a reasonable explanation for being at a relevant place (e.g., at a robbery scene), the court may allow the jury to infer that the silence supports guilt.

Question 5

List all the occasions when an adverse inference can be drawn from a defendant’s silence.

Answer 5

An adverse inference may be drawn in the following four situations:

1. Failure to mention a fact when questioned or charged that the defendant later relies on at trial (e.g., remaining silent during a police interview but later raising a defence).
2. Failure to give evidence at trial, allowing the jury to infer that silence suggests guilt.
3. Failure to explain the presence of objects, substances, or marks, such as not explaining why they had stolen goods or drugs.
4. Failure to account for presence at a particular place, like being at the scene of a crime without providing a reasonable explanation.