header-logo header-logo

29 November 2007
Issue: 7299 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Criminal evidence

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

Lord Justice Hughes, at paras 26–29, gave guidance on the operation of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 34. Justices should invariably ask 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?

Issue: 7299 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Kevin Joynes & Neil Gosling

Clarke Willmott—Kevin Joynes & Neil Gosling

Clarke Willmott bolsters housebuilder expertise in Birmingham

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Firm adds former Simmons Simmons patent head to engineering and tech team

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

Freeths strengthens its voice in national disputes with ACTAPS committee appointment

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll