header-logo header-logo

03 January 2008
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Criminal Evidence

T v DPP [2007] EWHC 1793 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 133 (Jul)

The court summarised the approach to be taken in a case where a magistrates’ court is considering whether or not to draw adverse inferences from failure to answer police questions in interview.

 

HELD The justices should ask themselves three questions.

 

(i) Has the defendant relied in his defence on a fact which he could reasonably have been expected to mention in his interview, but did not? If so, what is it?

 

(ii) What is his explanation for not having mentioned it?

 

(iii) If that explanation is not a reasonable one, is the proper inference to be drawn that he is guilty?

[In the crown court, the jury should of course be directed to ask themselves the same questions.]

Issue: 7302 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll