Negative inferences from the Defendant's conduct. Flashcards
According to Murray v UK: “it would be incompatible with the accused’s rights to base a conviction ‘_____’ on the accused’s silence or on a refusal to answer questions or to give evidence himself”.
What is ______?
Solely or mainly
A negative inference under Section 34 of the CJPO 1994 XXXXX apply where the accused makes no attempt to put forward at trial some previously undisclosed fact (e.g., where he simply contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case).
What is XXXXXX?
does not
Where the accused at the relevant time gives a prepared statement in which certain facts are set forth, it cannot subsequently be said that he has failed to mention those facts, even if she gives a “no comment” interview otherwise. True or false?
True
If the prosecution do not succeed in establishing at trial that the accused had previously failed to mention a fact in his defence how should the jury should be directed as to Section 34 of the CJPO 1994?
That no inference may be drawn
Inferences about silence before a suspect is charged under the CJPO 1994, s. 34(1)(a), may never be drawn. True or false?
False - inferences about silence can be drawn if there was no mention of a fact later relied upon when a defendant was being questioned under caution by a constable.
Complete the standard worded caution as set out in PACE Code C Paragraph 10.5….
“You do not have to say anything. But it ____ harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
may
Adverse inferences may be drawn from a fact subsequently relied on in defence only where the fact is one which, in the circumstances existing at the time, the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention (s. 34(1)). If the accused gives evidence, should his reason for failing to disclose should explored?
Yes. Section 34 only applies if a defendant fails to mention a fact he could have “reasonably be expected to mention”. If his conduct was reasonable, no s34 inference may be drawn.
A Lucas Direction must warn the jury that a lie can only support or strengthen evidence against the Defendant if it is:
a) XXXX and
b) Concerning a YYYYYY and
c) Motivated by guilt or fear of the truth and
d) Admitted or proved ZZZZZZZZ
XXXX = deliberate YYYY = material issue ZZZZZ = proved beyond reasonable doubt to be untrue
Complete the additional information that must be given with a Lucas Direction:
In addition the jury should be informed that:
a) The mere fact of telling a lie is ______
b) People lie for many reasons, such as shame or to bolster a just cause and not just from a sense of guilt
c) It must be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the statement is a lie, before it can use the statement as evidence of D’s guilt.
Not itself evidence of guilt
Jen defrauded Roy of £1000 by telling him that she was going to enter it into a lottery- whereas in reality she spent it on football tickets and shoes. Does a Lucas Direction have to be given?
No - the lie is part of the defence
Complete s34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act:
If a defendant is questioned under caution or charged with an offence, and fails to mention a fact later relied on in his defence at trial and which, in the circumstances existing at the time, he could reasonably have been expected to mention, the court or the jury XXX draw such inferences from the failure as appear ZZZ.”
XXX = may ZZZ = proper
If a defendant does not give evidence, he can never be said to have “relied on” facts that he did not mention in questioning. (R v Webber)
False- a positive case in cross examination counts as “relying upon”.
Can an inference under s34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 alone substantiate a conviction according to (Abdullah [1999] 3 Arch News 3)?
No
According to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s. 34, the Court must infer a negative inference against a defendant who has not mentioned a fact that they later relied on as part of their defence when the matter was being investigated. True or false?
False. May not must.
True or false?
Neither s. 36 nor s. 37 of the Crime and Justice Public Order Act 1994 permits an inference to be drawn unless four conditions are satisfied:
(a) the accused is arrested;
(b) a constable (not necessarily the arresting officer) reasonably believes that the object, substance or mark, or the presence of the accused at the relevant place, may be attributable to the accused’s participation in a crime.
(c) the constable informs the accused of his belief and requests an explanation of the matter in question;
(d) the constable tells the suspect in ordinary language the effect of a failure or refusal to comply with the request.
True
