Flashcards
Inferences - s34
Cards in this deck (11)
- 1What does s34 allow?Allows for inferences to be drawn when the suspect:
Is questioned under caution by a constable before charge/ on being charged;
Fails to mention a fact on in defence which could have reasonably have been expected to mention at the time.
(Although giving an inference is not a absolute obligation if the above is satisfied, there are other limits, and they only give the two tribunals the option to draw an inference. It cannot be the only reason to convict). - 2When must the defendant disclose facts?s34(1)(a): Before being charged, whilst being questioned under caution by a constable trying to establish whether an offence was committed, and if so who.
s34(1)(b): Or, on being charged with the offence. (although this isn't a major point as they would have had the chance to mention something in interview) - 3What are the requirements for them having to disclose something, for their failure to do so would result in an inference?If they rely on the fact as a defence, and it was reasonable for them to mention the fact at the time they were questioned or charged.
- 4R v Webber [2004]Considered a situation where the defendant chooses to not give evidence, and puts facts to prosecution through their lawyer, is this relying on the facts as a defence?
Stated s34 should have a broad definition, therefore it would be triggered if they relied on facts given through xx of prosecution witnesses.
(Check this) - 5R v Brizzalari [2004]In reference to the above case, the Judge has the discretion to decide whether s34 has been triggered in simular events, looking at the importants to allow s34 to be triggered.
- 6Condron [1997]Legal advise to remain silence cannot by itself prevent an adverse inference being given.
Although it can be taken into account when deciding refusal of an inference.
The Jury in the case had to decide whether they stayed silent because of the legal advice, or because they were guilty. - 7R v Argent [1997]Gives guidence on what would be reasonably tp remain silent during charge and interview.
“A court may conclude that it was reasonable for the defendant to have held his peace for a host of reasons, such as that he was tired, ill,
frightened, drunk, drugged, unable to understand what was going on, suspicious of the police…”
The Jury can also on infer guilt if they have stayed silent on legal advice, if it was because they were guilty. - 8R v Beckles [2005]2 Stage test to assess whether D reasonably relied on legal advice
Stage 1: Did D genuinely rely on the legal advice? (did the defendant accept the advice and believe he was entitled to follow it).
Stage 2: was it reasonably for the defendant to rely on the advice? (D may act reasonably if he relied on the legal advice to remain silent because he had no explaination to give, and the advice suited his own purposes). - 9What is the effect of silence under s34?s34(2)(d): On assessing guilt, the Jury or Court may draw inferences from the failure as appear proper
Meaning, if the suspect was questioned under caution by a Police officer, has remained silent on a defence, and they could have reasonably have been expected to mention it. Then, s34 allows an adverse inference to be drawn by the tribunal of fact (not law). - 10What are the safeguards? (these are relevant for s34, 35 36 and 37)s38(3): D cannot be solely convicted on an inference drawn
- 11How should the Jury be directed on s34?R v Petkar
Inference cannot solely convict
D did not have to answer
If the Jury believe it would have been reasonably to draw an inference, then they may (not must) draw an inference
Only should draw inference if there is no other satisfacotry explaination for the silence
Information
- Description
- Law of Evidence (Inference) Flashcards on Inferences - s34, created by James Dolton on 19/05/2018.
- Created by
- James Dolton
- Views
- 0
- Rating
More on Confessions and the Right to Silence