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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
The High Court has upheld a rare successful serious-irregularity challenge after an arbitrator relied on an implied term neither party had advanced
Thirty years after The Future of Law shook a profession still using fax machines, its central forecast looks increasingly less like prophecy and more like description
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
back-to-top-scroll